{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420072002","title":"TARGA MIDSTREAM SERVICES, L.P. — 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 192.225(b), 192.229(b), 192.243(b)(1), 192.477, 192.739(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420072002.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420072002.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420072002","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420072002","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TARGA MIDSTREAM SERVICES, L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.225(b),  192.229(b),  192.243(b)(1),  192.477,  192.739(a). The case was opened on 2007-06-04 and is reported as closed as of 2010-01-06. Proposed civil penalty: $24,000. Assessed civil penalty: $14,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420072002_FinalOrder_12232009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420072002/420072002_FinalOrder_12232009.pdf\n\n420072002_FinalOrder_12232009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420072002/420072002_FinalOrder_12232009_text.pdf\n\n420072002_NOPV-PCP_06042007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420072002/420072002_NOPV-PCP_06042007.pdf\n\n420072002_nopv-pcp_06042007_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420072002/420072002_nopv-pcp_06042007_text.pdf\n\n420072002_operator_response_07022007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420072002/420072002_operator_response_07022007.pdf\n\n420072002_FinalOrder_12232009_text.pdf\n\nDEC 23 2009\nMr. Marc O. Breitling\nVice President\nTarga Midstream Services LP\nTarga Resources, Inc.\n1000 Louisiana St, Suite 4300\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2007-2002\nDear Mr. Breitling:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation\nand assesses a civil penalty of $14,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final\nOrder. This enforcement action closes automatically upon payment. Service of this document is\nin accordance with 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: Mr. R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA\nVIA CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 0390 0005 6162 5272]\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 )\nTarga Midstream Services LP, ) CPF No. 4-2007-2002\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn July 10–14, 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 Seahawk and Pelican offshore gas\npipelines operated by Targa Midstream Services LP (Targa or Respondent) in Lake Arthur,\nLouisiana. Targa, a subsidiary of Targa Resources, Inc., operates natural gas and hazardous\nliquid pipelines in Texas, Louisiana, and the Gulf of Mexico, including the 120-mile Seahawk\nand Pelican offshore gas pipelines.\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). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nRespondent had committed violations of the natural gas pipeline safety regulations in 49 C.F.R.\nPart 192, and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $24,000 for the alleged violations. In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, the Notice also proposed finding that Respondent had\ncommitted certain other probable violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and warned Respondent to\ntake appropriate corrective action to address them or be subject to future enforcement action.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated July 2, 2007 (Response). Respondent\ncontested several of the allegations, offered information to explain the allegations, and requested\nthat the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing, and therefore\nhas waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent committed two violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.477, which states:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 192.477 Internal corrosion control: Monitoring.\nIf corrosive gas is being transported, coupons or other suitable means\nmust be used to determine the effectiveness of the steps taken to minimize\ninternal corrosion. Each coupon or other means of monitoring internal\ncorrosion must be checked two times each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 7½ months.\nThe Notice alleged Respondent violated § 192.477 by failing to check each coupon or other\nmeans of monitoring internal corrosion two times per calendar year, with intervals not exceeding\n7½ months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent had not extracted coupons for the\nSeahawk Lowry plant between December 18, 2002, and May 12, 2004. The Notice further\nalleged that Respondent had not extracted coupons for the same location between November 30,\n2004, and May 23, 2006. During the OPS inspection, Targa did not have records to demonstrate\nthat the coupons had been extracted during these time periods. The most recent record available\nduring the inspection indicated that a coupon had been installed on December 31, 2005, and\nremoved May 23, 2006.\nIn its Response, Targa explained that the company had been able to locate most of the missing\nrecords documenting the extraction of coupons during the periods referenced in the Notice.\nTarga submitted those records for review. After a review of the records, I find they demonstrate\ncompliance under § 192.477 with respect to all of the coupons referenced in the Notice, except\nfor the coupon installed on June 16, 2005, and removed December 13, 2005 (the “June 2005\ncoupon”). Targa acknowledged in its Response that it could not locate any record of checking\nthe June 2005 coupon, and the company offered no further evidence that the coupon had actually\nbeen checked as required under § 192.477.\nAccordingly, after considering all the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.477 by failing to check the June 2005 coupon two times per calendar year, with intervals\nnot exceeding 7½ months.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739, which states:\n§ 192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and\ntesting.\n(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs),\nand pressure regulating station and its equipment must be subjected at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to\ninspections and tests to determine that it is—\n(1) In good mechanical condition;\n(2) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of\noperation for the service in which it is employed;\n(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, set to control or\nrelieve at the correct pressure consistent with the pressure limits of\n§ 192.201(a); and\n\n\n\n3\n(4) Properly installed and protected from dirt, liquids, or other\nconditions that might prevent proper operation . . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 192.739(a) by failing to inspect and test each\nrelief device at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent had not inspected relief valve PSV 101A\nbetween January 28, 2004, and July 5, 2005, and had not inspected relief valve PSV 101B\nbetween January 28, 2004, and September 1, 2005. During the OPS inspection, Targa did not\nhave records to demonstrate that PSV 101A and 101B had been inspected at the required\nintervals.\nIn its Response, Targa contended that relief valves PSV 101A and 101B, which are mounted on a\npressure vessel at the Pelican Separation Facility, are not relied upon to provide primary\noverpressure protection for the pipeline. Primary protection for the pipeline is provided by\noffshore overpressure shutdown. Respondent explained that in the past, inspection and testing of\nrelief valves PSV 101A and 101B had been performed by personnel who operated the Pelican\nSeparation Facility. Targa committed to using its own pipeline personnel in the future to test and\ninspect these valves every calendar year, with intervals not to exceed 15 months, and to\ndocument those inspections to ensure compliance.\nWith regard to Respondent’s contention that relief valves PSV 101A and 101B are not relied\nupon for primary overpressure protection, I note that § 192.739(a) requires each relief valve to be\ninspected and tested at the requisite intervals, not just those valves providing primary protection.\nTherefore, Respondent is required to test and inspect PSV 101A and 101B, regardless of whether\nthey are relied upon for primary overpressure protection. After considering all of the evidence, I\nfind Targa violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a) by failing to inspect and test relief valves PSV 101A\nand PSV 101B at intervals not exceeding 15 months.\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 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 $24,000 for the two 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.\n\n\n\n4\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $15,000 for the violation of § 192.477. As noted\nabove, I found that Respondent committed a violation of § 192.477 by failing to regularly check\na coupon used to determine the effectiveness of steps taken by the company to minimize internal\ncorrosion. While Targa was able to demonstrate compliance with respect to most of the coupons\ncontained in the allegation of violation, the company could not provide any documentation or\nother evidence demonstrating that the June 2005 coupon had been checked.\nThe use of coupons to determine corrosion rates is important for predicting and mitigating future\ninternal corrosion. Failure to check coupons at requisite intervals and take appropriate mitigating\naction based on the results of those checks may lead to an eventual pipeline failure and release of\nnatural gas that is hazardous to the public, property, and the environment. Respondent has\ncategorized this violation as merely a “recordkeeping management error,\n” but the absence of\nsupporting evidence in the record makes it more likely that the coupon was not checked, which\nposes a risk to public safety. Accordingly, I find this violation warrants a civil penalty.\nI do acknowledge, however, that Respondent demonstrated compliance with regard to the other\ncoupons referenced in the Notice. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I find it is appropriate to reduce the civil penalty, and assess Respondent a\nreduced civil penalty of $5,000 for the violation of § 192.477.\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $9,000 for the violation of § 192.739(a). As\nnoted above, I found that Respondent committed a violation of § 192.739(a) by failing to inspect\ntwo relief valves at the required intervals. While Respondent provided some information in\nexplanation of the violation, the company did not present any information to justify mitigation of\nthe proposed civil penalty under the assessment criteria listed above.\nThe inspection and testing of relief valves at regular intervals helps to maintain important safety\nfeatures of a pipeline that prevent or minimize the impact of a pipeline emergency. Failure to\nproperly maintain relief valves can lead to an overpressure event, which can result in a pipeline\nfailure and the release of natural gas that is hazardous to the public, property, and the\nenvironment. Having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $9,000 for the violation of § 192.739(a).\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 $14,000.\nPayment of the civil penalties 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 269039, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $14,000 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\n\n\n\n5\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.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1, 2, and 3, 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. § 192.225(b) (Notice Item 1) – Respondent’s alleged failure to record and\nretain the results of qualifying tests for welding procedures used for the West Cameron\n118 riser repair that was performed on November 5–8, 2004;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.229(b) (Notice Item 2) – Respondent’s alleged use of a welder and\nwelding procedures for the West Cameron 118 riser repair, performed November 5–8,\n2004, even though the welder had not used those particular welding procedures within the\npreceding six calendar months; and\n49 C.F.R. § 192.243(b)(1) (Notice Item 3) – Respondent’s alleged failure to perform\nnondestructive testing of welds in accordance with written procedures for the West\nCameron 118 riser repair that was performed on November 5–8, 2004.\nIn its Response, Targa committed to certain actions to address the cited items. Having\nconsidered such information, I find, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, that probable violations of\n§§ 192.225(b) (Item 1), 192.229(b) (Item 2), and 192.243(b)(1) (Item 3) have occurred and\nRespondent is hereby advised to correct such conditions. In the event that OPS finds a violation\nfor any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future\nenforcement action.\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. However, if Respondent submits\npayment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the\nright to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are\neffective upon service.\n___________________________________ __________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":15997}