{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420051017","title":"BBT TRANS-UNION INTERSTATE PIPELINE, L.P. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2005-09-16","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 191.17(a), 192.805, 192.805(b), 192.805(g), 192.807.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420051017.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420051017.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420051017","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420051017","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BBT TRANS-UNION INTERSTATE PIPELINE, L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 191.17(a),  192,  192.805,  192.805(b),  192.805(g),  192.807. The case was opened on 2005-09-16 and is reported as closed as of 2010-01-25. Proposed civil penalty: $21,000. Assessed civil penalty: $16,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420051017_FnalOrder _07232009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420051017/420051017_FnalOrder%20_07232009.pdf\n\n420051017_FnalOrder _07232009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420051017/420051017_FnalOrder%20_07232009_text.pdf\n\n420051017_FnalOrder _07232009_text.pdf\n\nJUL 23 2009\nMr. John T. Duff\nVice President\nTrans-Union Interstate Pipeline, L.P.\n100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 1400\nTampa, FL 33602-3602\nRe: CPF No. 4-2005-1017\nDear Mr. Duff:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $16,000, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nTrans-Union to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set\nforth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the Compliance\nOrder completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will\nbe closed. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Jerry F. Coffey, General Counsel, Trans-Union Interstate Pipeline, L.P.\nMr. Rod Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 0390 0005 6162 5609]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n______________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nTrans-Union ) CPF No. 4-2005-1017\nInterstate Pipeline, L.P., )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n______________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn April 6-8, 2005, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-\nsite pipeline safety inspection of Trans-Union Interstate Pipeline, L.P.’s (Trans-Union’s or\nRespondent’s) operator qualification (OQ) records and procedures for its 42-inch natural gas\npipeline running from Bernice, Louisiana, to El Dorado, Arkansas. As a result of the inspection,\nthe Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated September\n16, 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 had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a\ncivil penalty of $21,000 for two of the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nAfter requesting and receiving a 30-day extension of time to respond, Respondent responded to\nthe Notice by letter dated November 15, 2005 (Response). Respondent contested two of the\nallegations and requested an informal hearing. An informal hearing was held via teleconference\non June 26, 2007 during which Respondent was represented by counsel. Larry L. White from\nthe Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, served as the presiding official. After the hearing,\nRespondent provided additional documents and information for the record on July 16, 2007.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805, which states in\npertinent part:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 192.805 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nSpecifically, Item 2 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 192.805 by failing to have a\nwritten OQ program in place, from the time it began pipeline operations on December 22, 2002,\nuntil October 2004, and by allowing contractor personnel who were not qualified under Trans-\nUnion’s OQ plan or an equivalent contractor plan to perform covered tasks on its pipeline\nbetween November 2004 and February 2005.\nWith respect to the allegation that Respondent did not have a written OQ plan in place between\nDecember 2002 and October 2004, Respondent acknowledged at the hearing that it did not have\na Trans-Union OQ plan in place during this period, but explained that Southern Natural Gas\n(SNG) operated the pipeline for Trans-Union during this period and that SNG used its parent\ncompany’s (i.e., El Paso Corporation’s) OQ plan. OPS pointed out that written OQ plans must\nnecessarily include training on abnormal operating conditions (AOCs). Because AOCs are\nspecific to a given pipeline, El Paso’s general OQ plan was insufficient to meet the intent of the\nregulation. During the hearing, Respondent was asked if it could provide documentation\nshowing that it had formally adopted the SNG/El Paso OQ plan as its own in December 2002\nwhen it began pipeline operations. After the hearing, Respondent provided a copy of the SNG\noperating agreement, but failed to include documentation showing that it had formally adopted\nthe SNG/El Paso OQ plan as its own when it began pipeline operations in December 2002. After\nconsidering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent did not have a written OQ plan in place\nbetween December 2002 and October 2004.\nWith respect to the allegation that Respondent allowed contractor personnel not qualified under\nits OQ plan (or an equivalent plan adopted by Trans-Union’s contractor) to perform covered\ntasks on its pipeline between November 2004 and February 2005,1\nRespondent acknowledged at\nthe hearing that there were two individuals performing covered tasks on its pipeline who were\nnot qualified under its OQ plan or the plan of its contractor, Energy Maintenance Services LLC\n(EMS), which succeeded SNG as the operator in September 2004. Respondent, however, stated\nthat the two individuals were former El Paso employees and contended that their having been\nqualified under the El Paso OQ plan (as evidenced by the “Veriforce” printouts it provided at the\nhearing) constituted compliance with its obligations under the regulation. OPS pointed out that\nthe Veriforce documents covering the 2003-2006 period were valid only for El Paso Corporation\nand that the two individuals were not re-qualified to the Trans-Union program during the\nrelevant period. The Veriforce documents provided by Respondent after the hearing purporting\nto show qualification for Trans-Union were dated July 10, 2007, and apparently cover the\n2006-2009 period.\nRespondent introduced a copy of an EMS OQ plan for Trans-Union dated March 1, 2004.\nRespondent acknowledged, however, that this plan was not actually in effect until March 29,\n2005. Respondent explained that the earlier date was meant to show that employees were\noperating under the original Hanover Measurement Services Company, L.P. (HMS) plan, which\nreflected the Veriforce arrangement dating from March 2004 before EMS acquired HMS.\nRespondent, however, failed to provide documentation showing that it had adopted and\n1 This issue was presented as Items 2B and 2C in the Notice but we combine them for efficiency in our discussion\nhere because they are essentially the same issue.\n\n\n\n3\nimplemented even the original HMS plan during the relevant period. After considering all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent allowed contractor personnel not qualified under its OQ plan (or\nan equivalent one adopted by Trans-Union’s contractor) to perform covered tasks on its pipeline\nbetween November 2004 and February 2005. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. § 192.805 as described in the Notice.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.807, which states in\npertinent part:\n§ 192.807 Recordkeeping.\nEach operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance with\nthis subpart.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent incorrectly recorded the effective date of its\nwritten OQ program as March 1, 2004, and provided this incorrect information to OPS during its\nOQ inspection.\nIn its Response and at the hearing, Respondent acknowledged that the EMS OQ plan dated\nMarch 1, 2004, did not match the true effective date of March 29, 2005, but contended that it did\nnot knowingly mislead inspectors. Respondent explained that the earlier date was meant to show\nthat employees were operating under the original HMS plan reflecting the Veriforce arrangement\ndating from March 2004. After considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.807 and failed to maintain compliant records by incorrectly recording the\neffective date of its written OQ program as March 1, 2004. The issue of whether the incorrect\ninformation was knowingly provided to OPS will be discussed in the penalty assessment section\nbelow.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of a civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to achieve\ncompliance with the pipeline safety regulations; and the Respondent’s ability to pay the penalty\nand any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business. In addition, I\nmay consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $21,000.\n\n\n\n4\nWith respect to Item 2, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $11,000 for Respondent’s violation\nof § 192.805, for failing to have a written OQ program in place between December 22, 2002, and\nOctober 2004 and by allowing contractor personnel not qualified under an OQ plan to perform\ncovered tasks on its pipeline between November 2004 and February 2005. Compliance with the\nOQ regulations is a key part of pipeline safety. Having a written plan in place by the applicable\ndeadline is the first step in implementing a program to ensure that pipeline employees are\nproperly trained and qualified. The performance of covered tasks by employees not properly\nqualified can result in circumstances that potentially put the safety of the public at risk. While\nRespondent engaged contractors to operate its pipeline system, Respondent was obligated to\nexercise sufficient oversight to ensure that all regulatory requirements, including an OQ\nprogram, were satisfied by such contractors. Respondent has presented no information that\nwould warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $11,000 for violating § 192.805.\nWith respect to Item 5, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,000 for Respondent’s violation\nof § 192.807, for incorrectly recording the effective date of its written OQ program. OPS further\nalleged that Respondent knowingly providing this incorrect information to OPS during its OQ\ninspection. Accurate and complete recordkeeping is an essential part of pipeline operations.\nOperators and OPS must be able to rely on the accuracy of records, including the effective date\nof plans and procedures and plan revisions, in order to know which plan or set of procedures was\nin effect when evaluating the performance of various maintenance and repair tasks. We\nacknowledge Respondent’s explanation that the earlier date was meant to show that employees\nwere operating under the original HMS plan and that the company did not knowingly mislead\nOPS inspectors. Having found that Respondent did not knowingly mislead OPS, I find that a\npartial reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice is warranted. Accordingly,\nhaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil\npenalty of $5,000 for violating § 192.807.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a total civil penalty of $16,000.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.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 269039, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $16,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin 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. Furthermore, 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.\n\n\n\n5\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Item 2 in the Notice for Respondent’s\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.805. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to\nensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\nWith respect to Item 2 in the Notice, within 60 days following receipt of this Order,\nprovide the Director with documentation demonstrating that each individual who\nperforms covered tasks on the Trans-Union pipeline system has received initial or\nsubsequent evaluations and is qualified for the covered tasks each individual performs.\nQualification must be completed by an acceptable method in accordance with the written\nOQ plan in effect. Include documentation demonstrating that records of all required\nevaluations and qualifications are complete and are being maintained.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent demonstrating good cause for an extension.\nFailure to comply with this Compliance Order may result in administrative assessment of civil\npenalties not to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in\nreferral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1, 3, and 4, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to\nbe warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 191.17 (Notice Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to timely file\nits 2003 annual report by March 15, 2004;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b) (Notice Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to include\nprovisions in its written OQ program to ensure through evaluation that individuals\nperforming covered tasks are qualified; and\n49 C.F.R. § 192.805(g) (Notice Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to include\nprovisions in its written OQ program identifying the intervals at which re-evaluations\nof individual qualifications for covered tasks are needed.\nRespondent presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited items. Having considered such information, I find, pursuant to 49 C.F.R.\n§190.205, that probable violations of 49 C.F.R. § 191.17 (Notice Item 1), 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b)\n\n\n\n6\n(Notice Item 3), and 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(g) (Notice Item 4) have occurred and Respondent is\nhereby advised to correct such conditions. In the event that OPS finds a violation of any of these\nitems in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a petition for reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be received within 20 days\nof Respondent’s receipt of this Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s).\nThe filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. All other\nterms of this Final Order, including any required corrective action, shall remain in full force and\neffect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions\nof this Final Order are effective upon receipt.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":17733}