{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420051008","title":"ENABLE GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2005-06-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.465(d), 192.605(a), 192.745(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420051008.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420051008.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420051008","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420051008","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ENABLE GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.465(d),  192.605(a),  192.745(a). The case was opened on 2005-06-15 and is reported as closed as of 2009-06-19. Proposed civil penalty: $179,500. Assessed civil penalty: $177,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420051008_FinalOrder_02112008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420051008/420051008_FinalOrder_02112008.pdf\n\n420051008_finalorder_02112008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420051008/420051008_finalorder_02112008_text.pdf\n\n420051008_finalorder_02112008_text.pdf\n\nU S Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Ave S E\nWashington DC 20590\nFEB 1 1 2008\nMr. Walter L. Ferguson\nSenior Vice-President Operations\nCenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company\n1111 Louisiana St.\nSuite 1120\n,\nHouston, TX 77002-5254\nRe; CPF No. 4-2005-1008\nDear Mr. Ferguson:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation,\nassesses a civil penalty of $177, 500, and specifies actions to be taken to comply with the\npipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order When\nthe civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined\nby the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of the\nFinal Order constitutes service under 49 C F. R. $ 190. 5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSmcerely,\n4 ~6~ ig5z\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipehne Safety\nEnclosure\nCERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\nIn the Matter of\nCenterPoint Energy Gas\nTransmission Company,\nRespondent\nCPF No. 4-2005-1008\nFINAL ORDER\nOn May 3 — 21, 2004, pursuant to 49 U. S. C, $ 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) conducted an on-site pipeline safety\ninspection of Respondent's facilities and records in Texas and Louisiana. As a result of the\ninspection, the Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA, issued to Respondent by letter dated June\n15, 2005, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance\nOrder (Notice). In accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 207, the Notice proposed finding that\nRespondent committed violations of 49 C. F. R. Part 192 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of\n$179, 500 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed that Respondent take certain\nmeasures to correct the alleged violations.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Respondent responded to the\nNotice by letter dated August 16, 2005 (Response). Respondent contested one of the allegations,\noffered supplemental information concerning the allegations, and requested that the proposed\ncivil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing, and therefore has waived its\nright to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem 1 in the Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 465(d), which states:\n49 C. F. R. g 192. 465 — External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each pipeline that is under cathodic protection must be tested at least\nonce each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to\ndetermine whether the cathodic protection meets the requirements of\n$ 192. 463. . . .\n\n\n\n(d) Each operator shall take prompt remedial action to correct any deficiencies\nindicated by the monitoring.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to promptly address deficiencies in its cathodic\nprotection system, as evidenced by cathodic protection readings at several test stations that did\nnot meet the applicable -850 millivolt (mV) criteria during consecutive years. As specified in\n$ 192. 463 and Appendix D to Part 192, each cathodic protection system must provide a level of\nprotection that complies with one or more of the applicable criteria. A cathodic protection\nsystem that does not meet the -850mV criteria or another applicable criteria (such as the 100mV\ncriteria) may not be providing sufficient protection against corrosion and is considered deficient.\nWhen monitoring indicates that a cathodic protection system is deficient, an operator must take\nprompt remedial action to correct the deficiency pursuant to $ 192. 465(d). PHMSA considers\nremedial action to be prompt if evaluations are completed and corrective action begins within a\nfew months (proportionately less where monitoring is more frequent) and all necessary remedial\nactions have been completed by the next scheduled monitoring.\nIn this case, Respondent's records show that it applied the -850mV criteria at several test\nlocations, but some of the locations failed to meet that or another applicable criteria for\nconsecutive years. Accordingly, Respondent did not take prompt remedial action as specified in\n$ 192. 465(d) to correct those deficiencies, Respondent did not contest this allegation of\nviolation. Therefore, I find Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 465(d) as alleged in the Notice.\nItem 2 in the Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $$ 192. 605(a) and 192. 463(a).\nThose sections state as follows:\n49 C. F. R. f 192. 605 — Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a\nmanual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance\nactivities. . . .\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following, if\napplicable, to provide safety during maintenance and operations. . .\n(2) Controlling corrosion in accordance with the operations and\nmaintenance requirements of subpart I of this part [$$ 192. 451 — 192. 491].\n49 C. F. R. g 192. 463 — External corrosion control: Cathodic protection.\n(a) Each cathodic protection system required by this subpart must provide\na level of cathodic protection that complies with one or more of the applicable\ncriteria contained in appendix D of this part. If none of these criteria is\napplicable, the cathodic protection system must provide a level of cathodic\nprotection at least equal to that provided by compliance with one or more of\nthese criteria.\n\n\n\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to follow its procedures for applying the 100mV\ncathodic protection criteria at several test points on its pipeline system. As specified in\n$ 192, 463 and appendix D of Part 192, a cathodic protection system is required to provide a level\nof protection that meets an applicable criteria, such as the 100mV criteria. A cathodic protection\nsystem that does not meet the applicable criteria may not be providing sufficient protection\nagainst corrosion and is considered deficient.\nRespondent's manual of procedures includes provisions for applying the 100mV criteria.\nHowever, Respondent's records show that at several test points where that criteria had been used,\nRespondent failed to achieve the minimum negative polarization voltage shift required by its\nown procedures. Specifically, the voltage shift as tested at several locations was less negative\nthan 100mV. In its Response, Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Therefore,\nI find Respondent violated 49 C. F, R. )$ 192. 605(a) and 192. 463(a) as alleged in the Notice.\nItem 3 in the Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 745(a), which states:\n49 C. F. R. f 192. 605 — Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a\nmanual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance\nactivities. . . .\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following, if\napplicable, to provide safety during maintenance and operations.\n(1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance\nwith each of the requirements of. . . subpart M of this part [)$ 192. 701—\n192. 755]. . . .\n49 C. F. R. g 192. 745 — Valve maintenance: Transmission lines.\n(a) Each transmission line valve that might be required during any emergency\nmust be inspected and partially operated at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but\nat least once each calendar year.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to follow its own procedures for inspecting and\npartially operating each transmission line valve that might be required during an emergency. At\nthe time of the inspection, Respondent's manual of written procedures stated: \"Each mainline\nblock valve. . . or any other valves that might be required during any emergency shall be\ninspected and partially operated at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each\ncalendar year to be sure they are in good condition and operate properly. \"\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent's valve inspection records for the Ruston-Perryville and\nBuckley areas indicated many valves had not been partially operated over the course of several\nyears, even though many of the valves had been inspected.\n\n\n\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged there were 174 occurrences of Respondent failing to operate a\nvalve that might be required during an emergency.\nIn its Response, Respondent asserted that it conducted an internal review of the same records\nexamined by PHMSA, as well as its own maintenance practices. Based on its review,\nRespondent contended that with respect to 147 of the 174 alleged violations, Respondent was in\ncompliance with its written procedures and with applicable regulations, Of the allegations\ncontested, Respondent claimed that 26 were the result of data entry errors, 33 were associated\nwith valves that are not required during an emergency, 11 were associated with valves that were\noperated at times other than annual inspection and maintenance events, and 77 were instances\nwhere an employee had verified operation of the valve even though no documentation is\navailable. Respondent submitted records and documents to support its claim that it was in\ncompliance with respect to the 147 referenced occurrences. Respondent did not contest the\nremaining 27 alleged violations.\nWith regard to Respondent's contention that 26 occurrences listed in the Notice were the result\nof data entry errors, Respondent submitted records of maintenance activities for the valves in\nquestion and explained that the errors were a function of the management system utilized at the\ntime. The records submitted include two dated work orders — for valves FM-38 0+00\n(BV46248) and FM-2 11+89 (BV46128) — that show those valves were in fact operated and\n\"closed\" in 2003 and 2004, respectively. The documentation does not, however, show that\noperations took place for the other 24 occurrences since the documentation did not include work\norders dated prior to the PHMSA inspection. Undated records, or documentation of operations\nthat took place after the date of the PHMSA inspection, do not rebut the allegations of violation,\nbecause they do not prove that Respondent operated the valves within the specified time period.\nAccordingly, I find Respondent has demonstrated compliance with respect to only two of the 26\noccurrences that Respondent contended were the result of data entry errors.\nWith regard to Respondent's contention that 33 occurrences listed in the Notice were associated\nwith valves that are not required during an emergency, Respondent submitted a table of valves\nthat Respondent labeled \"not in emergency service. \" Respondent did not submit information\nregarding how or when it determined these valves are not required during an emergency. During\nthe May 2004 PHMSA inspection, Respondent was asked several questions pertaining to its\ncompliance with $ 192. 745 and the procedures in its written manual associated with the\nrequirement to partially operate valves that might be required during an emergency. Respondent\nindicated during the inspection that its procedures did not distinguish which valves might be\nrequired during an emergency and which ones would not. During interviews with personnel, the\nPHMSA inspector also found that some technicians considered certain valves to be emergency\nvalves while other technicians did not.\nSubsequent to the PHMSA inspection, Respondent amended its procedures to designate which\nvalves might or might not be required during an emergency. Based on those amendments,\nRespondent has contended that 33 alleged missed inspections are associated with valves that are\nnot presently considered to be required during an emergency. While the regulation provides that\nRespondent determines which valves on its pipeline system might or might not be required\n\n\n\nduring an emergency, at the time of the PHMSA inspection Respondent had not made such a\ndetermination. At the time of PHMSA's inspection, Respondent was required by $ 192, 745 to\ninspect and partially operate all emergency valves at the designated intervals. Respondent had\nnot distinguished which valves were emergency valves and had not determined that the valves\nassociated with these 33 occurrences were not necessary in an emergency.\nRespondent failed to consistently operate those valves as required at the time pursuant to $\n192. 745. Therefore, I find Respondent has not demonstrated compliance with respect to any of\nthese 33 occurrences.\nRespondent also asserted that 11 valves listed in the Notice had been operated at the requisite\nintervals during operations that were not part of annual inspection and maintenance events.\nRespondent submitted block valve history records for two valves (F-1-F 350+15 (002) and F-1-F\n350+15 (003)) that indicate the valves had been operated and closed in 2001. However, the\ndocumentation submitted does not show that other valves had been operated or closed. For\nexample, the computer-generated history record for block valve (001) did not indicate that the\nvalve had been operated, although an undated handwritten note said that it had been.\nDocmnentation provided for the other valves did not indicate at all if those valves had been\noperated. Therefore, I find the evidence submitted by Respondent is sufficient to demonstrate\ncompliance with $ 192. 745 for only two of these 11 valves.\nFinally, Respondent claimed that 77 occurrences were operations that had been verified by\nemployees but that no documentation of compliance existed, Respondent did not provide any\ndocumentation with respect to those 77 occurrence. Therefore, Respondent has not demonstrated\ncompliance with the regulation.\nAfter reviewing the documentation provided by Respondent, I find Respondent has demonstrated\ncompliance with respect to 4 of the 174 alleg:d violations, Accordingly, I find Respondent\nviolated 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 745(a) as alleged in the Notice, except for the following four valves:\nFM-38 0+00 (BV46248), FM-2 11+89 (BV46128), F-1-F 350+15 (002), aild F-1-F 350+15\n(003).\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U. S. C. $ 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100, 000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1, 000, 000 for any related series of\nviolations. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $179, 500 for the violations,\n49 U. S. C. $ 60122 and 49 C. F. R, ) 190. 225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation;\ndegree of Respondent's culpability; history of Respondent's prior offenses; Respondent's ability\nto pay the penalty; good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance; the effect on\nRespondent's ability to continue in business; and such other matters as justice may require.\nItem I in the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $51, 000 for failing to promptly correct\ndeficiencies in cathodic protection, in violation of 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 465(d).\n\n\n\nPipelines that are not maintained with adequate levels of cathodic protection may develop\nexternal corrosion that over time leads to a pipeline failure, Respondent requested mitigation of\nthe proposed civil penalty based on the corrective action it has taken to bring the deficient areas\ninto compliance and Respondent's overall commitment to safety, I do not find the corrective\naction completed by Respondent after its receipt of the Notice justifies reducing the civil penalty,\nbecause Respondent has an affirmative obligation to maintain its pipeline system in compliance\nwith applicable pipeline safety regulations at all times and to correct any deficiencies.\nI also find Respondent has not provided any evidence that was not reviewed by PHMSA at the\ntime of the inspection pertaining to its good faith attempt to achieve compliance. Accordingly,\nhaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil\npenalty of $51, 000 for violation of ( 192. 465(d).\nItem 2 in the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $38, 000 for failing to follow Respondent's\nwritten procedures for cathodic protection, in violation of 49 C. F. R. $$ 192. 605(a) and\n192. 463(a). Failing to ensure that established operations and maintenance procedures are\nfollowed threatens the safety of a pipeline system. Specifically, pipelines that are not maintained\nwith adequate levels of cathodic protection may be damaged by external corrosion, which over\ntime can lead to a pipeline failure that risks the safety of people and the environment.\nRespondent requested mitigation of the proposed civil penalty based on corrective action that it\nhas taken, including revising procedures, establishing a corrosion manager position, and\nreviewing the appropriateness of selected criteria. I do not find that the corrective action taken\nby Respondent after its receipt of the Notice justifies reducing the civil penalty, because\nRespondent has an affirmative obligation to maintain its pipelines system in compliance with\napplicable pipeline safety regulations at all times and to correct any deficiencies.\nRespondent also requested mitigation based on its commitment to safety, and the limited scope\nof the violations. However, I do not find Respondent has provided any evidence that was not\nreviewed by PHMSA at the time of the inspection pertaining to Respondent's good faith attempt\nto achieve compliance with $$ 192. 605(a) and 192. 463(a). Respondent has not demonstrated\nthat the scope of the violations warrants a reduction in the penalty, as the civil penalty amount\nwas proposed specifically for the violations that were found. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $38, 000 for\nviolation of $( 192, 605(a) and 192, 463(a).\nItem 3 in the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $90, 500 for failing to inspect and partially\noperate transmission line valves that may be required during an emergency, in violation of 49\nC. F, R. $ 192, 745(a). Valves that might be required during any emergency must be operable at\nall times to minimize and avoid possible danger to the public and environment in the event of an\nemergency. Respondent's failure to identify which valves might be required during\nan emergency and to regularly ensure proper operation of those valves significantly increased the\nrisk that during an emergency, Respondent would not be able to operate valves necessary to\navoid a hazardous condition. In its Response, Respondent was able to demonstrate that it was in\ncompliance with respect to four of the 174 alleged violations. Accordingly, a proportional\nreduction to the civil penalty is appropriate. However, Respondent did not present any additional\nreasons for reducing the civil penalty.\n\n\n\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a reduced civil penalty of $88, 500 for violating $ 192. 745(a).\nRespondent has not provided any evidence suggesting that Respondent is not able to pay the\nproposed civil penalty. Therefore, I find Respondent is able to pay the penalty without adversely\naffecting its ability to continue in business.\nHaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a total\ncivil penalty of $177, 500.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49\nC. F. R. $ 89. 21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U. S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P. O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailine to pay the $177, 500 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual\nrate in accordance with 31 U. S. C, $ 3717, 31 C. F. R. ) 901. 9, and 49 C. F. R. $ 89. 23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Finthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United\nStates District Court.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2 and 3. Under 49 U. S. C.\n) 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a\npipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under\nChapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U. S. C. ) 60118(b) and 49 C. F, R. $ 190. 217,\nRespondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety\nregulations applicable to its operations. Respondent must:\n1. Submit documentation demonstrating that each pipeline segment located in the East\nTexas and Louisiana Districts, including those segments listed in Tables I, II, and III\nin the Notice, are in compliance with 49 C. F. R. $) 192. 465(d), 192. 605(a) and\n192. 463(a).\n2. Submit documentation demonstrating that each transmission line valve, including\neach valve listed in Tables IV and V in the Notice, which might be required during\nany emergency, is in compliance with 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 745(a).\n3. Complete each of the above items and submit documentation of completion within 30\ndays of receipt of this Final Order. Documentation shall be submitted to the Director,\nSouthwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, 8701 South Gessner Dr, Suite 1110,\nHouston, TX 77074-2949.\n\n\n\nThe Director, Southwest Region, may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the\nCompliance Order items upon a written request timely submitted by the Respondent\ndemonstrating good cause for an extension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not\nto exceed $100, 000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order, The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this\nFinal Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s), The filing of the petition\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. All other terms of the order,\nincluding any required corrective action, remain in full effect unless the Associate Administrator,\nupon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt.\nPEB y 1 2()08\nDate Issued\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":23971}