{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420072001","title":"ENBRIDGE OFFSHORE (GAS GATHERING) L.L.C. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2007-06-04","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.477, 192.481(a), 192.745(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420072001.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420072001.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420072001","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420072001","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ENBRIDGE OFFSHORE (GAS GATHERING) L.L.C.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.477,  192.481(a),  192.745(a). The case was opened on 2007-06-04 and is reported as closed as of 2010-08-24. Proposed civil penalty: $38,000. Assessed civil penalty: $29,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420072001_FinalOrder_08172010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420072001/420072001_FinalOrder_08172010.pdf\n\n420072001_FinalOrder_08172010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420072001/420072001_FinalOrder_08172010_text.pdf\n\n420072001_nopv letter_06042007_redacted.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420072001/420072001_nopv%20letter_06042007_redacted.pdf\n\n420072001_nopv letter_06042007_redacted_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420072001/420072001_nopv%20letter_06042007_redacted_text.pdf\n\n420072001_Operator Post Hearing Response_ 04072009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420072001/420072001_Operator%20Post%20Hearing%20Response_%2004072009.pdf\n\n420072001_operator response to notice letter_06292007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420072001/420072001_operator%20response%20to%20notice%20letter_06292007.pdf\n\n420072001_FinalOrder_08172010_text.pdf\n\nAUG 17 2010\nMr. Garry Worone\nVice President, Operations\nEnbridge Offshore Gas Gathering L.L.C.\n1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 3300\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2007-2001\nDear Mr. Worone:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws one\nallegation of violation, makes findings of violation, and assesses a civil penalty of $29,000. The\npenalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes\nautomatically upon payment. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective\nupon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Rod M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0039 0805]\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 )\nEnbridge Offshore ) CPF No. 4-2007-2001\nGas Gathering, L.L.C., )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n______________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn July 24-26, 2006, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Enbridge Offshore\nGas Gathering L.L.C. (EOGG or Respondent) in Houma, Louisiana. EOGG’s gas gathering\nsystem consists of approximately 99.5 miles of pipe and terminates in St. Mary’s Parish,\nLouisiana.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated June 4, 2007, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil\nPenalty (Notice).1 Respondent had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed assessing a\ncivil penalty of $38,000 for the alleged violations.\nIn accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated June 29, 2007 (Response). EOGG contested\nthe allegations and requested a hearing. An informal hearing was subsequently held via\nteleconference on March 11, 2009, with Larry White, Attorney, PHMSA Office of Chief\nCounsel, presiding. At the hearing, Respondent was represented by counsel. After the hearing,\nRespondent provided additional written material for the record by letter dated April 7, 2009.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.477, which states:\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\n1 The caption in the Notice indicated that the proceeding involved a Proposed Compliance Order as well but this\nwas a misprint.\n\n\n\n2\n§ 192.477 – Internal corrosion control: Monitoring\nIf corrosive gas is being transported, coupons or other suitable means must be\nused to determine the effectiveness of the steps taken to minimize internal\ncorrosion. Each coupon or other means of monitoring internal corrosion must be\nchecked two times each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 7 ½\nmonths.\nThe Notice alleged that the “Garden City Nautilus 30-inch from SS207” internal corrosion\ncoupon was not checked as required in 2005 based on records reviewed during the inspection\nindicating that coupon D9557 was installed on December 20, 2004 and not removed until\nDecember 20, 2005, exceeding the maximum interval by several months.\nIn its supplemental response following the hearing, EOGG provided documentation in the form\nof a report produced by Baker Hughes showing that coupon D9557 had actually been installed\non April 8, 2005.\n12 month period alleged in the Notice, it still exceeds the 7 ½ month maximum interval in the\nregulation by approximately one month. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I\nfind that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.477 by failing to check the “Garden City Nautilus\n30-inch from SS207” coupon two times in calendar year 2005, but with intervals not exceeding 7\n½ months.\n2 While the period from April 8, 2005 to December 20, 2005 is shorter than the\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481, which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.481 – Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring\n(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is\nexposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:\nIf the pipeline is\nlocated: Then the frequency of inspection is:\nOnshore At least once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39\nmonths\nOffshore At least once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent did not have records demonstrating that an atmospheric\ncorrosion inspection had been performed for the offshore facilities in 2004. In its Response and\nduring the hearing, EOGG explained that ownership of the offshore facilities had changed in\n2004 and that following the inspection, it sought additional records from Marathon, the prior\nowner. In its Response, EOGG provided documentation it obtained from Marathon in the form\n2 Respondent’s June 29, 2007 correspondence had indicated May 8, 2005 as the date Coupon D9557 was installed,\nbut in its April 7, 2009 correspondence Respondent corrected the record and stated that April 8, 2005 was actually\nthe relevant date as documented in the Baker Hughes report.\n\n\n\n3\nof an “ACC Database Master List-2005” showing that atmospheric corrosion inspections were\nperformed on the offshore facilities by Marathon in June and July of 2004. Accordingly, after\nconsidering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent was in compliance with the cited\nrequirement. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 2 of the Notice be withdrawn.\nIt should be noted, however, that under § 192.491(c), operators are required to “maintain”\nof a pipeline is transferred to a new company, the new company must acquire and continue to\nmaintain the existing records. In this case, EOGG did not comply with the requirement to\nmaintain all corrosion control records. If § 192.491(c) had been cited in the Notice, EOGG\nwould likely have been found in violation of this requirement despite later acquiring the records\ncorrosion control records for at least five years.3 When ownership and operating responsibility\nfrom the former owner.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745, which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 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 did not have records demonstrating that required annual\ninspections had been performed for valve # 2010 in calendar years 2004 and 2005.\nIn its Response and during the hearing, EOGG acknowledged that it did not have records of\ndocumented annual inspections of the valve for the specified years, but contended that event logs\nfrom its Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system showed that the valve was\noperated on one occasion during a restart in each of those two years. The fact that the valve\nfunctioned during pipeline operations, however, is not the same thing as performing a required\nannual valve inspection. While ensuring each valve remains operational is part of an operator’s\nresponsibility, compliance with the annual valve inspection requirement involves a physical\ninspection of the valve including, among other things, checking the condition of the seals and\nchecking for the presence of water and the condition of the lubricant and documenting the\nfindings. Respondent did not demonstrate that annual valve inspections had been performed for\nthe valve for the specified years. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745 by failing to perform documented annual inspections\nof valve # 2010 in calendar years 2004 and 2005.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\n3 Records related to §§ 192.465 (a) and (e) and 192.475(b) must be retained for as long as the pipeline remains in\nservice.\n\n\n\n4\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.\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I\nmust 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 Respondent’s ability to pay the penalty and any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $14,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.477 by failing to check the “Garden City Nautilus 30-inch from SS207” coupon two times\nin calendar year 2005, but with intervals not exceeding 7 ½ months.\nCorrosion is one of the leading causes of pipeline leaks and failures. Timely inspection of\ncorrosion coupons is a key part of protecting a pipeline from internal corrosion. Coupons must\nbe checked on a regular basis to ensure an accurate understanding of corrosion rates and allow an\noperator to make appropriate judgments about the effectiveness of its corrosion control\nmeasures. Respondent exceeded the maximum interval for checking the specified corrosion\ncoupon by a full month. Respondent did not present any evidence or argument justifying a\nreduction in or elimination of the 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 $14,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.477.\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $15,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.745 by failing to perform documented annual inspections of valve # 2010 in calendar years\n2004 and 2005. During the hearing, Respondent contended that the proposed penalty for this\nitem should be reduced because EOGG viewed it as a paperwork deficiency. Maintaining\ncomplete and accurate records, however, is very important to an operator’s ability to make\noperating decisions and to be able to evaluate the performance of its personnel. Moreover, the\nviolation in this case went beyond a paperwork deficiency. Performing annual valve inspections\nis a fundamental requirement for safely operating a pipeline. The purpose of performing\nperiodic maintenance inspections is to ensure that all valves will be operational if the need to\nclose them arises, such as during a spill or failure. The fact that Respondent showed that the\nvalve functioned on one occasion during each of those two years during post-hurricane restarts\ndoes not diminish the potential seriousness of the lack of two annual inspections, nor does a\nchange in ownership. Respondent did not present any evidence or argument justifying a\nreduction in or elimination of the 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 $15,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.745.\n\n\n\n5\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $29,000.\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; The Financial\nDivision’s telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $29,000 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 district\ncourt of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has the right to submit a petition for reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. Should respondent elect to do so, the petition must be sent to: Associate\nAdministrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building,\n2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590. A copy of the petition should also be sent to: Assistant Chief\nCounsel for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor,\nWashington, DC 20590. The petition must be received no later than 20 days after service of this\nFinal Order upon the Respondent and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all\nother requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the\npayment of any civil penalty assessed but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order,\nincluding any required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment for the civil penalty,\nthe Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for\nreconsideration is waived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon receipt of service.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":15865}