{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420071003","title":"GULF SOUTH PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2007-03-27","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.605(b)(1), 192.909(a), 192.911(k), 192.911(l), 192.911(m), 192.915, 192.917(a), 192.917(b), 192.917(c), 192.917(e)(3), 192.919(b), 192.921, 192.921(a)(1), 192.933(c), 192.935(a), 192.935(c), 192.937(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420071003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420071003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420071003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420071003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving GULF SOUTH PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.605(b)(1),  192.909(a),  192.911(k),  192.911(l),  192.911(m),  192.915,  192.917(a),  192.917(b),  192.917(c),  192.917(e)(3),  192.919(b),  192.921,  192.921(a)(1),  192.933(c),  192.935(a),  192.935(c),  192.937(b). The case was opened on 2007-03-27 and is reported as closed as of 2012-05-30. Proposed civil penalty: $183,000. Assessed civil penalty: $85,800. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420071003_Closure_05302012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420071003/420071003_Closure_05302012.pdf\n\n420071003_Closure_05302012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420071003/420071003_Closure_05302012_text.pdf\n\n420071003_Final Order_11022011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420071003/420071003_Final%20Order_11022011.pdf\n\n420071003_Final Order_11022011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420071003/420071003_Final%20Order_11022011_text.pdf\n\n420071003_Notice Letter_03272007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420071003/420071003_Notice%20Letter_03272007.pdf\n\n420071003_Operator_Response_11082007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420071003/420071003_Operator_Response_11082007.pdf\n\nGulf South Request for Hearing.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420071003/Gulf%20South%20Request%20for%20Hearing.pdf\n\n420071003_Closure_05302012_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMay 30, 2012\nMr. David Goodwin\nVice President, Compliance and Operations Services\nGulf South Pipeline Company, LP\n9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800\nHouston, TX 77046\nCPF 4-2007-1003\nDear Mr. Goodwin:\nOn November 2, 2011, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This\nOrder included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Payment of the civil penalty\nwas received on November 17, 2011. Based on our review of the documentation you provided,\nit has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest region\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\n\n420071003_Notice Letter_03272007.pdf\n\n}4AR 2 e 2001\n@\nU.S. Deporlment\nof Tronsportqlion\nPlpellne ond\nHozqrdous mqterlols Soteiy\nAdminlslrqiion\n8701 South Gessnsr, Suite 1110\nHouston, TX 77074\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED GOMPLIANCE ORDER\nGERTIFIED MAIL. RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMarch 27.2007\nMr. John Earley\nSenior Vice President\nGulf South Pipeline\n20 E. Greenway Plaza\nSuite 900\nHouston, Texas 77046\ncPF 4-2007-1003\nDear Mr. Earley:\nDuring the weeks of January 23 - 27, and February 6 - 10, 2006, representatives of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of\n49 United States Code inspected your integrity management program in Houston, Texas.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and\nthe orobable violations are:\n1. S 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of\nwritten procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for\nemergency response. For transmission lines, the manual must also include\nprocedures for handling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and\nupdated bythe operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once\neach calendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline\nsystem commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations\nwhere operations and maintenance activities are conducted.\n\n\n\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of\nthis section must include procedures for the following, if applicable, to provide\nsafety during maintenance and operations.\n(1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance with\neach of the requirements of this subpart and subpart M of this part.\nS 192.713 Transmission lines: Permanent field repair of imperfections and\ndamages.\n(a) Each imperfection or damage that impairs the serviceability of pipe in a steel\ntransmission line operating at or above 40 percent of SMYS must be -\n(1) Removed by cutting out and replacing a cylindrical piece of pipe; or\n(2) Repaired by a method that reliable engineering tests and analyses show\ncan permanently restore the serviceability of the pipe.\n(b) Operating pressure must be at a safe level during repair operations.\nA. On September 24 - 25, 2003, Gulf South personnel recoated a section of pipe on\ntheir Pipeline # l-129 Agua Dulce line ai SS 123+13 which exhibited localized\ncorrosion pitting in the seam and in the girth weld. Gulf South did not repair the\ndefects either in accordance with their own O&M procedures or in accordance with a\nmethod that reliable engineering tests and analyses shows can permanently restore\nthe serviceability of the pipe. Gulf South's O&M procedure, 10.8 Repair of Leaks\nand Defective Pipe, requires per Table 2 - Repair Methods for Environmentally\nCaused Defects, that the corrosion be repaired with a Type B Sleeve. Similarly, the\ncurrent industry standard for reliable engineering tests is the 1994 \"Pipeline Repair\nManual\" developed for the American Gas Association, and Table 1, \"Summary of\nRepair Applications\", from that manual indicates that a Type B Sleeve is the only\naccepted method for Factor 20 (ERW Selective Corrosion). Similarly, for Factor 27\n(Girth-Weld Defect), the accepted repair applications include Grinding, Deposited\nWeld Metal and Type B Sleeve.\nB. On October 2-3, 2003, Gulf South personnel repaired a section of pipe on their\nPipeline # l-129 Agua Dulce line at SS 286+05 which exhibited localized and general\ncorrosion pitting in the seam by using a composite repair method. Gulf South did not\nrepair the defects in accordance with their own O&M orocedures or in accordance\nwith a method that reliable engineering tests and analyses shows can permanently\nrestore the serviceability of the pipe. Gulf South personnel repaired a section of pipe\nexhibiting localized and general corrosion pitting in a longitudinal weld using a\ncomposite sleeve by the name of PermaWrap. The current standard for reliable\nengineering tests is the 1994 \"Pipeline Repair Manual\" developed for the American\nGas Association (A newer version has not been published to date). Table 1.\nSummary of Repair Applications, from that manual indicates that a Type B Sleeve is\nthe only accepted method for Factor 20. ERW Selective Corrosion.\n\n\n\n2. 5192.909 How can an operator change its integrity management program?\n3.\n(a) General. An operator must document any change to its program and the\nreasons for the change before implementing the change.\nGulf South IMP did not have procedures and documentation requirements for\naddressing changes to the lMP. Gulf South has described its overall process for\nManagement of Change in Section 14 of the lMP, with the process flow identified in\nFigure 14.1-1. Section 14.7 indicates that modifications to the IMP follow the process in\nFigure '14.1-1\n. Further, changes have been made to the IMP to date, but these changes\nhave not been performed and documented in accordance with Gulf South's program\nstatements made in Figure 14.1-1 of the lMP. Gulf South did not have proper\nprocedures and it did not execute rule required actions even against their own process\nflow descriotion.\nWith regard to other changes, the Gulf South IMP did not include procedures and\ndocumentation requirements for the management of change process to address\ntechnical, physical, procedural, and organizational changes as stated in the lMP. Gulf\nSouth did not have any verification that they executed any management of change\nactivities against any elements of their program according to rule requirements.\n5192.911 What are the elements of an integrity management program? An\noperator's initial integrity management program begins with a framework (see\n5192.907) and evolves into a more detailed and comprehensive integrity\nmanagement program, as information is gained and incorporated into the\nprogram. An operator must make continual improvements to its program. The\ninitial program framework and subsequent program must, at minimum, contain\nthe following elements. (When indicated, refer to ASME/ANSI 831 .8S (incorporated\nby reference, see $192.7) for more detailed information on the listed element.)\n(k) A management of change process as outlined in ASME/ANSI 831.8S, section\n11.\nThe Gulf South IMP did not include a procedure to keep the BAP up-to-date with respect\nto newly arising information that may require changes to the segment prioritization or\nassessment method. CE's IMP Section 4.7 requires that risk assessment be updated\nwhen new information is obtained and that the changes be evaluated to determine if\nchanges to the BAP are warranted but there is no procedure to ensure the process is\nimplemented.\nIMP Section 5.'1 requires that all changes to the Baseline Assessment Plan have a\nreason, be approved by the proper authority, be analyzed for implications of the changes\nand be properly communicated to involved individuals but there are no detailed\nprocedures describing how these requirements are to be implemented, Documentation\nof changes implemented since the initial baseline assessment plan developed\n1211712004 has not been prepared that reflect the reason for the change, approval of the\nchange, analysis of the implications of the change, or the communication of the change\nto stakeholders.\n\n\n\n4. 5192.911 (see above)\n(l) A quality assurance process as outlined in ASME/ANSI B31 .8S, section 12.\nGulf South did not have sufficiently comprehensive QfuQC procedures and is evidenced\nby their failed QA/QC procedures for threat management as described for Index 130\nbelow. The IMP has inadequate specification for the performance and documentation of\nprogram reviews, both internal and external reviews, in that no definition is provided for\nthe scope of the proposed reviews and the periodicity expected for these reviews. The\nQuality Assurance Plan for the IMP (found in Section 12.6 of the Plan) did not\nadequately address the requirements of ASME 831 .8S, Chapter 12 for each element of\nthe lMP. There is no specification of what constitutes the set of QA/QC activities\nassociated with conduct of the IMP and no identification of responsibilities for those\nactivities. An example of inadequate QA process controls is noted in the fact that\napplicable threats have not been assessed for Index 130 piping for which an lll has\nbeen performed and credited, but no assessment has been performed to assess the\nprimary threat of third party damage. This threat is normally assessed by the use of\ncaliper pigs. This line was credited in the BAP as having been assessed, but this cannot\nbe complete until a caliper pig has been run. lt would be expected that the quality\nassurance process would identify this discrepancy.\n5.\n6.\n5192.911 (see above)\n(l) A quality assurance process as outlined in ASME/ANSI 831 .8S, section 12,\nGulf South hired a consultant to conduct an external/independent review of the Gulf\nSouth IMP (Review of Integrity Management Program, August 15,2005, Process\nPerformance lmprovement Consultants, LLC), but there is no evidence that corrective\nmeasures recommended by this review were performed and completed and no process\nexists by which to track these corrective measures to completion (e.9., as may be\nevidenced by the proper use of an IMP change log). Gulf South did not have procedures\nwhich ensure that contractors are required to have appropriate OA/AC controls. The\nTuboscope ISA did not have QA/QC specifications.\nS192.911 (see above)\n(m) A communication plan that includes the elements of ASME/ANSI B31 .8S,\nsection 10, and that includes procedures for addressing safety concerns raised\nby--\n(1) OPS;and\n(2) A State or local pipeline safety authority when a covered segment is\nlocated in a State where OPS has an interstate agent agreement.\nGulf South did not have procedures to address how it will regularly and routinely\ncommunicate and document IMP issues internally and how it will execute against\nrequests made by PHMSA and State/Local officials.\nGulf South has no formal procedures or requirements to adequately provide for regular\ninternal communications on a specified interval nor is an ongoing effort prescribed which\n\n\n\n7. 8.\nenables a broad internal understanding and buy-in to the lMP. The Gulf South Internal\nCommunications Plan simply consists of an information session provided to Field VPs,\nArea Business Leaders, and the Operations group personnel during various regular staff\nmeetings.\nSubsection 11.2.2 of the Gulf South IMP states that safety concerns raised by PHMSA\nor State/local officials are to be addressed, but there are no programmatic procedures or\nrequirements for how this process is to be carried out and documented. IMP Section\n1 1.1 references the company's Integrity Management Awareness Program. However,\nthis program was not made available during the inspection.\n5192.915 What knowledge and training must personnel have to carry out an\nintegrity management program?\n(b) Persons who carry out assessments and evaluate assessment results. The\nintegrity management program must provide criteria for the qualification of any\nperson--\n(1) Who conducts an integrity assessment allowed under this subpart; or\n(2) Who reviews and analyzes the results from an integrity assessment and\nevaluation; or\n(3) Who makes decisions on actions to be taken based on these\nassessments.\n(c) Persons responsible for preventive and mitigative measures. The integrity\nmanagement program must provide criteria for the qualification of any person--\n(1) Who implements preventive and mitigative measures to carry out this\nsubpart, including the marking and locating of buried structures; or\n(2) Who directly supervises excavation work carried out in conjunction with\nan integrity assessment?\nGulf South did not have procedures or program qualification requirements documented\nin the IMP for personnel that carry out assessments and review assessment results or\nfor other personnel who carry out IMP activities. Qualification requirements must be\ndefined for necessary lM functions - resumes or training records may then demonstrate\nthat qualification requirements have been met.\n5192.917 How does an operator identify potential threats to pipeline integrity and\nuse the threat identification in its integrity program?\n(a) Threat identification. An operator must identify and evaluate all potential\nthreats to each covered pipeline segment. Potential threats that an operator must\nconsider include, but are not limited to, the threats listed in ASME/ANSI 831.8S\n(incorporated by referencet see S 192.7), section 2, which are grouped under the\nfollowing four categories:\n(1) Time dependent threats such as internal corrosion, external corrosion,\nand stress corrosion cracking;\n\n\n\n9.\n(2) Static or resident threats, such as fabrication or construction defects;\n(3) Time independent threats such as third party damage and outside force\ndamage; and\n(4) Human error.\nGulf South did not have procedures to properly evaluate and/or eliminate threats, and\nGulf South eliminated threats improperly. The basis for elimination of cyclic fatigue or\nother loading conditions as a threat for all pipeline segments has not been adequately\njustified in program documentation. No systematic process is described or implemented\nthat demonstrates how threats are evaluated for specific segments and their applicability\nor non-applicability documented for use in other elements of the program.\nGulf South did not have a procedure not analyze interacting threats as required by the\nregulations such as corrosion related to LF-ERW pipe or accelerated by third party or\noutside force damage. Each threat has been analyzed separately, but the potential\nworsening of the impact of the threats due to interaction has not been analyzed or\nconsidered in the risk model or program documentation.\n5192.917 (see above)\n(b) Data gathering and integration. To identify and evaluate the potential threats to\na covered pipeline segment, an operator must gather and integrate existing data\nand information on the entire pipeline that could be relevant to the covered\nsegment, In performing this data gathering and integration, an operator must\nfollow the requirements in ASME/ANSI 831 .8S, section 4. At a minimum, an\noperator must gather and evaluate the set of data specified in Appendix A to\nASME/ANSI 831 .8S, and consider both on the covered segment and similar non-\ncovered segments, past incident history, corrosion control records, continuing\nsurveillance records, patrolling records, maintenance history, internal inspection\nrecords and all other conditions specific to each pipeline.\nGulf South did not have procedures to gather and integrate data. No\nprocess/procedures exist to describe the requirements to gather and/ or integrate data or\nQA/QC procedures to ensure data quality.\nGulf South has not developed procedures or program controls to ensure that the data\nsources listed in ASME B3'l .8S, Table 2 have been utilized forthe lMP. lf data sources\nare ruled out. the basis for their exclusion must be documented. Gulf South has no\nrecord of assumptions that have been made when missing or inadequate data has been\nidentified.\nGulf South has not developed procedures or program requirements to address the basis\nfor assumptions made when data is missing or suspect. Specifically, the following four\nelements are not addressed:\nr Each threat covered by the missing or suspect data is assumed to apply to the\nsegment being evaluated. The unavailability of identified data elements is not a\njustification for exclusion of a threat.\n. Conservative assumptions are used in the risk assessment for that threat and\nsegment or the segment is given higher priority.\n\n\n\n10.\n11.\n12.\nr Records are maintained that identify how unsubstantiated data are used, so that\nthe impact on the variability and accuracy of assessment results can be\nconsidered.\n. Depending on the importance of the data, additional inspection actions or field\ndata collection efforts may be required.\n5192.917 (see above)\n(b) Data gathering and integration. (see above)\nGulf South has not explicitly analyzed and reviewed for each covered segment the\ncomplete data sets specified in ASME 831.8S Appendix A and summarized in Table 1\nand the additional 7 data sets prescribed by the lM Rule. Where data elements have\nbeen ruled out, the basis for their exclusion must be documented\n5192.917 (see above)\n(c) Risk assessment. An operator must conduct a risk assessment that follows\nASME/ANSI 831 .8S, section 5, and considers the identified threats for each\ncovered segment. An operator must use the risk assessment to prioritize the\ncovered segments for the baseline and continual reassessments ($192.919,\n192.921, 192.937), and to determine what additional preventive and mitigative\nmeasures are needed (S192.935) for the covered segment.\nGulf South did not have orocedures to address how risk data is used to accomplish the\nfollowing objectives and it did not perform the following objectives according to rule\nreq uirements:\n. assessing the benefits derived from mitigating action\nr determining the most effective mitigation measures for the identified threats\n. assessing of the integrity impact from modified inspection intervals\no assessing of the use of or need for alternative inspection methodologies\no effective resource allocation\n. facilitating decisions to address risks along a pipeline or within a facility\nRisk values generated by the risk model are exclusively being used to prioritize\nassessments in the BAP. This adequately addresses the objective of prioritization of\nsegments for scheduling integrity assessments but not other requirements. IMP Section\n4.1 states that the risk information is to be used to accomplish these objectives, but\nthere is no documentation describino how this is done.\n5192.917 (see above)\n(e) Actions to address particular threats. lf an operator identifies any of\nthe\nfollowing threats, the operator must take the following actions to address\nthethreat.\n\n\n\n13.\n14.\n(3) Manufacturing and construction defects. lf an operator identifies the\nthreat of manufacturing and construction defects (including seam defects)\nin the covered segment, an operator must analyze the covered segment to\ndetermine the risk of failure from these defects. The analysis must consider\nthe results of prior assessments on the covered segment. An operator may\nconsider manufacturing and construction related defects to be stable\ndefects if the operating pressure on the covered segment has not\nincreased over the maximum operating pressure experienced during the\nfive years preceding identification of the high consequence area, lf any of\nthe following changes occur in the covered segment, an operator must\nprioritize the covered segment as a high risk segment for the baseline\nassessment or a subsequent reassessment,\n(i) Operating pressure increases above the maximum operating\npressure experienced during the preceding five years;\n(ii) MAOP increases; or\n(iii) The stresses leading to cyclic fatigue increase.\nGulf South did not have defined processes or procedures to address Manufacturing and\nConstruction defects. The IMP specifically did not include defined processes or\nprocedures describing how to monitor operating pressure increases that may occur\nabove the maximum operating pressure experienced during the preceding five years,\nMAOP increases, or the stresses leading to cyclic fatigue increases that may have\noccurred in covered segments.\n5192.919 What must be in the baseline assessment plan?\nAn operator must include each of the following elements in its written baseline\nassessment plan:\n(b) The methods selected to assess the integrity of the line pipe, including an\nexplanation of why the assessment method was selected to address the identified\nthreats to each covered segment. The integrity assessment method an operator\nuses must be based on the threats identified to the covered segment. (See\n5192.917.) More than one method may be required to address all the threats to the\ncovered pipeline segment.\nGulf South did not properly assess for relevant threats or conduct the proper baseline\nassessments. Gulf South pipeline Index 130 is credited with a prior lll assessment.\nHowever, Gulf South did not have a documented process or analysis showing that all\napplicable threats have been addressed by the prior assessment. The assessment did\nnot include a caliper run to address potential third party damage which the risk\nassessment identified as a primary threat. As such, this assessment may not be credited\nas a completed assessment.\n5192.921 How is the baseline assessment to be conducted?\n(a) Assessment methods. An operator must assess the integrity of the line pipe in\neach covered segment by applying one or more of the following methods\n8\n\n\n\n15.\n16,\ndepending on the threats to which the covered segment is susceptible. An\noperator must select the method or methods best suited to address the threats\nidentified to the covered segment (See $192.917).\n(1) Internal inspection tool or tools capable of detecting corrosion, and any\nother threats to which the covered segment is susceptible. An operator\nmust follow ASME/ANSI 831 .8S (incorporated by reference, see 5192.7),\nsection 6.2 in selecting the appropriate internal inspection tools for the\ncovered segment.\nGulf South's IMP did not include procedures or programmatic requirements describing\nthe process for analysis and documentation of lLl tool selection nor did it perform the\nassociated rule required actions as is evidenced by lndex 130 and described in both\nitems 4. and 13. above. Gulf South's Evaluation and Remediation Practice #4, Inline\nInspection Practice, recognizes that lLl tools have an average of 80% accuracy\nconfidence, but processes do not specify the use of a tool tolerance to compensate for\npotential tool and grading inaccuracies for lLl results. Gulf South did not have\nprocedures or programmatic requirements for quality assurance and vendor personnel\nqualifications for evaluation of lLl results. There is no documented procedure or process\nfor recording decisional information regarding assessment methods to address identified\nthreats for each covered seoment.\n5192.921 (see above)\n(fl Newly identified areas. When an operator identifies a new high consequence\narea (see 5192.905), an operator must complete the baseline assessment of the\nline pipe in the newly identified high consequence area within ten (10) years from\nthe date the area is identified,\n(g) Newly installed pipe. An operator must complete the baseline assessment of a\nnewly-installed segment of pipe covered by this subpart within ten (10) years from\nthe date the pipe is installed. An operator may conduct a pressure test in\naccordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section, to satisfy the requirement for a\nbaseline assessment.\nGulf South did not have procedures or programmatic requirements to complete a\nbaseline assessment for segment[s] having newly identified HCAs and newly installed\nsegments within ten [10] years from the date of identification. Procedures and process\ndescriptions must describe how the baseline assessment plan is updated to reflect the\nreo uired assessment sched ule.\n5192.933 What actions must be taken to address integrity issues?\n(c) Schedule for evaluation and remediation. An operator must complete\nremediation of a condition according to a schedule that prioritizes the conditions\nfor evaluation and remediation. Unless a special requirement for remediating\ncertain conditions applies, as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, an\noperator must follow the schedule in ASME/ANSI 831 .8S (incorporated by\nreference, see $ 192.7), section 7, Figure 4. lf an operator cannot meet the\nschedule for any condition, the operator must justify the reasons why it cannot\n9\n\n\n\n17.\n18.\nmeet the schedule and that the changed schedule will not jeopardize public\nsafety. An operator must notify OPS in accordance with $ 192.949 if it cannot meet\nthe schedule and cannot provide safety through a temporary reduction in\noperating pressure or other action. An operator must also notify a State or local\npipeline safety authority when either a covered segment is located in a State\nwhere OPS has an interstate agent agreement, or an intrastate covered segment is\nregulated by that State.\nGulf South did not have procedures to implement their lM plan which does define the\nprocess used when justifying why a remediation schedule cannot be met and why the\nchanged schedule will not jeopardize public safety. There is no identification of who is to\ndevelop this justification, the contents of the justification, where the record is to be\nmaintained, etc. Gulf South stated that it is expected that these justifications will be\nplaced in dig packets, but it is also noted that there is no documented procedure or\nprocess used for developing dig packets. Procedures for controlling both processes\nneed to be established to ensure repeatability.\n5192.933 (see above)\n(c) Schedule for evaluation and remediation. (see above)\nGulf South did not develop a prioritized schedule for remediation activities as required by\nthe regulations and as specified in the Gulf South IMP Section 7.5. There was no\nschedule record.\n5192.935 What additional preventive and mitigative measures must an operator\ntake to protect the high consequence area?\n(a) General requirements. An operator must take additional measures beyond\nthose already required by Part 192 to prevent a pipeline failure and to mitigate the\nconsequences of a pipeline failure in a high consequence area. An operator must\nbase the additional measures on the threats the operator has identified to each\npipeline segment. (See $192.917) An operator must conduct, in accordance with\none of the risk assessment approaches in ASME/ANSI 831.8S (incorporated by\nreference, see $192.7), section 5, a risk analysis of its pipeline to identify\nadditional measures to protect the high consequence area and enhance public\nsafety. Such additional measures include, but are not limited to, installing\nAutomatic Shut-off Valves or Remote Control Valves, installing computerized\nmonitoring and leak detection systems, replacing pipe segments with pipe of\nheavier wall thickness, providing additional training to personnel on response\nprocedures, conducting drills with local emergency responders and implementing\nadditional inspection and maintenance programs.\nGulf South did not have formal procedures or documentation to identify the required\nadditional P&M measures will be selected or imolemented and which also considers\nboth the likelihood and conseouences of a failure.\n10\n\n\n\n19. 5192.935 (see above)\n(a) General requirements. (see above)\nGulf South has completed baseline assessments for several HCA segments but the\nthreats to those segments have not been evaluated to identify appropriate and required\nP&M Measures.\n20.\n5192.935 (see above)\n(c) Automatic shut-off valves (ASV) or Remote control valves (RGV). lf an operator\ndetermines, based on a risk analysis, that an ASV or RCV would be an efficient\nmeans of adding protection to a high consequence area in the event of a gas\nrelease, an operator must install the ASV or RGV. In making that determination, an\noperator must, at least, consider the following factors-swiftness of leak detection\nand pipe shutdown capabilities, the type of gas being transported, operating\npressure, the rate of potential release, pipeline profile, the potential for ignition,\nand location of nearest response personnel.\nGulf South did not have a documented risk analysis-based procedure to determine if\nautomatic shut-off valves or remote control valves should be added to their system.\n21.\n5192.937 What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to maintain a\npipeline's integrity?\n(b) Evaluation. An operator must conduct a periodic evaluation as frequently as\nneeded to assure the integrity of each covered segment. The periodic evaluation\nmust be based on a data integration and risk assessment of the entire pipeline as\nspecified in $192.917. For plastic transmission pipelines, the periodic evaluation is\nbased on the threat analysis specified in 5192.917(d). For all other transmission\npipelines, the evaluation must consider the past and present integrity assessment\nresults, data integration and risk assessment information ($192.917), and\ndecisions about remediation ($192.933) and additional preventive and mitigative\nactions (S192.935). An operator must use the results from this evaluation to\nidentify the threats specific to each covered segment and the risk represented by\nthese threats.\nGulf South did not have procedures and documentation requirements for performing\nperiodic evaluations based on a data integration and risk assessment of the entire\npipeline nor did it perform the required actions per the rule requirements. The\nevaluations must consider past and present assessment results, data integration, risk\nassessment information, decisions about remediation, and additional preventive and\nmitigative actions.\nGulf South did not have procedures and documentation requirements for performing\noeriodic evaluations to establish reassessment methods and schedules nor had it\nproperly established reassessment methods and schedules per rule requirements.\nl1\n\n\n\n22.\n§192.937 (b) (see above).\nGulf South has not conducted periodic evaluations for those baseline assessments that\nhave been reported as complete per the Gulf South IMP Section 6.5.2 which specifies\nthat the required periodic evaluations will be conducted annually.\n23.\n§192.937 (see above)\n(b) Evaluation. (see above)\nGulf South did not have procedures and documentation requirements for the review of\ncompleted periodic evaluation results to determine if new information warrants changes\nto reassessment intervals and/or methods.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000\nfor any related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances\nand supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and ha\necommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $183,000 as follows\nItem number\nPENALTY\n1.A.\n$30,000\n1.B.\n$30,000\n4.\n$16,000\n10.\n11.\n$16,000\n13.\n$16,000\n$16,000\n14.\n$16,000\n17.\n$16,000\n22\n19.\n$11,000\n$16,000\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 1 - 23 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Gulf South\nPipeline. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part\nof this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be\nadvised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being\nmade publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information\n12\n\n\n\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). lf you do not respond within 30 days\nof receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in\nthis Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2007-1003 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nq&,2,4,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: ProposedComplianceOrder\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\nI J\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code S 601 18, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Gulf South a Compliance Order incorporating the\nfollowing remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Gulf South with the pipeline safety\nreq ulations:\n1.\n2.\n4.\n5.\n6.\n7.\n8.\n9.\n10.\nIn regard to ltem Number 1.A of the Notice pertaining to the actions on\nSeptember 24-25,2003, where Gulf South personnel recoated a section of pipe\non their Pipeline #l-129 Agua Dulce line at SS 123+13 which exhibited localized\ncorrosion pitting in the seam and in the girth weld, Gulf South did not repair the\ndefects by following their O&M procedures or by using a method that reliable\nengineering tests and analyses show can permanently restore the serviceability\nof the pipe. Gulf South must excavate and make proper repairs.\nIn regard to ltem Number 1.B of the Notice pertaining to the actions taken on\nOctober 2-3, 2003, where Gulf South personnel repaired a section of pipe on\ntheir Pipeline # l-129 Agua Dulce line at SS 286+05 which exhibited localized\nand general corrosion pitting in the seam, Gulf South did not repair the defects by\nfollowing their O&M procedures or by using a method that reliable engineering\ntests and analyses show can permanently restore the serviceability of the pipe.\nGulf South must excavate and make proper repairs.\nIn regard to ltem Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to Management of Change\nprocedures, Gulf South must develop and implement appropriate Management of\nChange procedures to cover the issues addressed.\nIn regard to ltem Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to BAP procedures, Gulf\nSouth must develop and implement appropriate BAP procedures to cover the\nissues addressed.\nIn regard to ltem Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to QfuQC procedures, Gulf\nSouth must develop and implement appropriate QfuOC procedures to cover the\nissues addressed.\nln regard to ltem Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to findings from the\nexternal/independent review, Gulf South must detail their plans with regard to\neach of the findings in the review. ln regard to ltem Number 5 of the Notice\npertaining to QAI/QC procedures for contractors, Gulf South must develop and\nimplement appropriate QfuQC procedures to cover the issues addressed.\nIn regard to ltem Numbers 6 of the Notice pertaining to internal and external\ncommunications, Gulf South must develop and implement appropriate\nCommunication procedures to cover the issues addressed.\nIn regard to ltem Number 7 of the Notice pertaining to expected Knowledge and\nTraining of company personnel, Gulf South must develop and implement\nappropriate Training procedures to cover the issues addressed.\nIn regard to ltem Numbers 8 of the Notice pertaining to Threat ldentification, Gulf\nSouth must develop and implement appropriate Threat Assessment procedures\nto cover the issues addressed.\nIn regard to ltem Numbers 9 of the Notice pertaining to Data Gathering and\nl +\n\n\n\n11.\n12.\n13.\n14.\n15.\n16.\n17.\n18.\n19.\n20.\n21.\n22.\n2 5 .\n2 4 .\nIntegration, Gulf South must develop and implement appropriate procedures to\ncover the issues addressed.\nIn regard to ltem Numbers 10 of the Notice pertaining to Data Gathering and\nIntegration, Gulf South must develop and implement appropriate procedures to\ncover the issues addressed.\nIn regard to ltem Number 11 of the Notice pertaining to Risk Assessment, Gulf\nSouth must develop and implement procedures to cover the issues addressed.\nIn regard to ltem Number 12 of the Notice pertaining to Manufacturing and\nConstruction Defects, Gulf South must develop and implement procedures to\ncover the issues addressed.\nIn regard to ltem Number 13 of the Notice pertaining to proper assessments for\nprior lll assessments, Gulf South must review the discussed BAP of Index 130\nand all other prior assessments and determine and document their ability to be\nincluded as prior assessments and where necessary Gulf South must address\nany shortfalls discovered during the review.\nIn regard to ltem Number 14 of the Notice pertaining to Assessment Methods,\nGulf South must develop and implement procedures to cover the issues\naddressed.\nln regard to ltem Number 15 of the Notice pertaining to Baseline Assessments\nfor Newly ldentified HCA Areas, Gulf South must develop and implement\nappropriate procedures to cover the issues addressed.\nIn regard to ltem Number 16 of the Notice pertaining to Evaluaiion and\nRemediation schedules, Gulf South must develop and implement appropriate\nprocedures to cover the issues addressed.\nIn regard to ltem Number 17 of the Notice pertaining to Evaluation and\nRemediation schedules, Gulf South must develop and implement appropriate\nschedules to cover the issues addressed.\nIn regard to ltem Number 18 of the Notice pertaining to preventive and mitigative\nmeasures, Gulf South must develop and implement appropriate procedures to\ncover the issues addressed.\nIn regard to ltem Number 19 of the Notice pertaining to preventive and mitigativ","truncated":true,"body_characters":157587}