{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420072005","title":"TRUNKLINE GAS CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2007-08-16","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.475, 192.477, 192.479, 192.603, 192.605(b), 192.612(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420072005.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420072005.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420072005","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420072005","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TRUNKLINE GAS CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.475,  192.477,  192.479,  192.603,  192.605(b),  192.612(a). The case was opened on 2007-08-16 and is reported as closed as of 2011-11-01. Proposed civil penalty: $55,000. Assessed civil penalty: $0. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420072005_Closure Letter_11012011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420072005/420072005_Closure%20Letter_11012011.pdf\n\n420072005_Closure Letter_11012011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420072005/420072005_Closure%20Letter_11012011_text.pdf\n\n420072005_FinalOrder_12212010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420072005/420072005_FinalOrder_12212010.pdf\n\n420072005_FinalOrder_12212010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420072005/420072005_FinalOrder_12212010_text.pdf\n\n420072005_nopvpcppco_08162007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420072005/420072005_nopvpcppco_08162007.pdf\n\n420072005_nopvpcppco_08162007_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420072005/420072005_nopvpcppco_08162007_text.pdf\n\n420072005_operator response_09192007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420072005/420072005_operator%20response_09192007.pdf\n\n420072005_Closure Letter_11012011_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nNovember 1, 2011\nMr. Jeryl Mohn\nVice President\nTrunkline Gas Company, LLC\n5444 Westheimer Rd\nHouston TX 77056-5306\nCPF 4-2007-2005\nDear Mr. Mohn:\nOn December 21, 2010, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA) issued to Trunkline Gas Company a Final Order in the above-referenced\ncase. This Order included a Compliance Order. Based on our review of the\ndocumentation you provided, it has been determined that you have complied with the\nterms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect\nto the matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n\n420072005_FinalOrder_12212010_text.pdf\n\nDEC 21 2010\nMr. Robert O. Bond\nPresident\nPanhandle Energy\nSouthern Union Company\n5444 Westheimer Road\nHouston, TX 77056-5306\nRe: CPF No. 4-2007-2005\nDear Mr. Bond:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, withdraws certain allegations and the civil penalties proposed in the Notice, and\nspecifies actions that need to be taken by Trunkline Gas Company, LLC, to comply with the\npipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as\ndetermined by the Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA, this enforcement action will be closed.\nService of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as\notherwise 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: Mr. Rod Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0041 3184]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n______________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nTrunkline Gas Company, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2007-2005\n)\nRespondent. )\n______________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn August 21-25 and October 30, 2006, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Trunkline\ninspection focused on Trunkline’s Vermillion and Terrebonne offshore gas pipeline systems in\nthe Gulf of Mexico. Trunkline operates a 3,500-mile natural gas transmission pipeline network\nthat supplies gas from the Gulf Coast to the Midwest.\nGas Company, LLC (Trunkline or Respondent)1 in Centerville and Erath, Louisiana. The\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated August 16, 2007, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that Trunkline had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.477, 192.479, 192.605(a)\nand 192.612(a), assessing a civil penalty of $55,000 for the alleged violations, and ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed\nfinding that Trunkline had committed certain other probable violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and\nwarning the company to take appropriate corrective action or be subject to future enforcement\naction.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated May 29, 2007 (Response). Trunkline\ncontested several of the allegations and requested a hearing, which was held on April 23, 2008,\nin Houston, Texas, with an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. At\nthe hearing, Respondent was represented by counsel. After the hearing, Respondent provided a\npost-hearing statement for the record, by letter dated May 29, 2008 (Closing).\n1 Trunkline is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Southern Union Company.\n\n\n\n2\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. § 192.477, which states:\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 that Trunkline violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.477 by failing to check a coupon two\ntimes each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 7½ months. Specifically, it alleged\nthat the internal corrosion coupon at Ship Shoal 139 on the Newfield production platform had\nnot been checked since 2004. Trunkline contested this allegation on the basis that it did not own\nor operate the pipeline on which the coupon was installed. At the hearing, Trunkline provided\nmaps and drawings supporting its argument. OPS has reviewed these documents and confirmed\nthat the coupon was not on a pipeline facility owned or operated by Trunkline. Accordingly,\nbased upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 2 be withdrawn.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479, which states:\n§ 192.479 Atmospheric corrosion control: General.\n(a) Each operator must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of\npipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under\nparagraph (c) of this section.\n(b) Coating material must be suitable for the prevention of atmospheric\ncorrosion.\n(c) Except portions of pipelines in offshore splash zones or soil-to-air\ninterfaces, the operator need not protect from atmospheric corrosion any\npipeline for which the operator demonstrates by test, investigation, or\nexperience appropriate to the environment of the pipeline that corrosion-\n(1) Only be a light surface oxide; or\n(2) Not affect the safe operation of the pipeline before the next\nscheduled inspection.\nThe Notice alleged that Trunkline violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479 by failing to protect its pipeline\nfrom atmospheric corrosion. Specifically, it alleged that Trunkline allowed corrosion to develop\non its pipeline at the South Timbalier 63 and 151 locations. The OPS Violation Report prepared\nin support of the Notice included photographs of the corroded areas.2\nRespondent contested this\nallegation. At the hearing, Trunkline argued that the remaining pipe wall thickness at the\nindicated locations was sufficient to protect the safety of the pipeline. Respondent also argued\nthat the regulation allowed for corrosion of offshore piping. In its Closing, Trunkline further\n2 Violation Report, Attachments 2 and 3.\n\n\n\n3\nargued that corrosion would have to be significantly greater than what was observed in order to\nsupport a violation of § 192.479.3\nRespondent is correct that § 192.479(c) allows operators to forego atmospheric corrosion\nprotection for some pipelines under certain circumstances. However, Respondent has not\ndemonstrated “by test, investigation or experience appropriate to the environment of the\npipeline” that the corrosion observed by OPS would not affect safe operation of the pipeline\nbefore the next scheduled inspection. Respondent’s argument on the remaining wall thickness\ndoes not demonstrate that the corrosion would not continue and reach an unsafe level before the\nnext inspection. At the time of the OPS inspection, the coating at the indicated locations was\ncompromised and corrosion was continuing. Offshore environmental conditions are variable and\nany number of factors could lead to further corrosion that would affect the safe operation of the\npipeline.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.479 by failing to protect its pipeline from atmospheric corrosion.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), which states:\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each\npipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and\nmaintenance activities and for emergency response. For transmission\nlines, the manual must include procedures for handling abnormal\noperations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.\nThis manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system\ncommence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations\nwhere operations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Trunkline violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to keep appropriate\nparts of its manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities\nand for emergency response at locations where such activities were being conducted.\nSpecifically, it alleged that there was no site-specific emergency plan kept at the Ship Shoal 139\ncompressor platform.\nTrunkline contested this allegation and argued that a document known as the “Station Bill” was\nposted on the platform and served as the facility’s emergency plan.\nprovided photographs of the Station Bill and argued that this document, along with portions of\nthe company’s operating procedures and a safety training video shown to all individuals who\ncome aboard the platform, collectively constituted its procedures for emergency response.\n4 At the hearing, Respondent\n3 Closing at 2.\n4 Response at 3.\n\n\n\n4\nI find this argument unpersuasive. The regulation requires operators to keep appropriate parts of\ntheir written manual of emergency response procedures on their platforms. For the following\nreasons neither the Station Bill, the video, nor Trunkline’s operating procedures, either singly or\ncollectively, constitute the written manual required by the regulations. In addition, while\nTrunkline argued that its standard operating procedures contained emergency response materials,\nthose materials neither provided nor referenced the relevant parts of the required written manual.\nIn the absence of such materials, I cannot assess whether or not they satisfy the requirements of\n§ 192.605(a).\nFinally, it should be noted that the Station Bill lacked the level of detail required of an\nemergency plan. Section 192.615(a) sets out the minimum requirements for emergency plans as\nfollows:\n§ 192.615 Emergency plans.\n(a) Each operator shall establish written procedures to minimize the\nhazard resulting from a gas pipeline emergency. At a minimum, the\nprocedures must provide for the following:\n(1) Receiving, identifying, and classifying notices of events which\nrequire immediate response by the operator.\n(2) Establishing and maintaining adequate means of communication\nwith appropriate fire, police, and other public officials.\n(3) Prompt and effective response to a notice of each type of\nemergency, including the following:\n(i) Gas detected inside or near a building.\n(ii) Fire located near or directly involving a pipeline facility.\n(iii) Explosion occurring near or directly involving a pipeline facility.\n(iv) Natural disaster.\n(4) The availability of personnel, equipment, tools, and materials, as\nneeded at the scene of an emergency.\n(5) Actions directed toward protecting people first and then property.\n(6) Emergency shutdown and pressure reduction in any section of the\noperator's pipeline system necessary to minimize hazards to life or\nproperty.\n(7) Making safe any actual or potential hazard to life or property.\n(8) Notifying appropriate fire, police, and other public officials of gas\npipeline emergencies and coordinating with them both planned responses\nand actual responses during an emergency.\n(9) Safely restoring any service outage.\n(10) Beginning action under § 192.617, if applicable, as soon after the\nend of the emergency as possible….\nThe procedures for emergency response required by § 192.615(a) must be included in the manual\nrequired by § 192.605(a).5\nRespondent’s Station Bill lacked the emergency response procedures\nrequired by § 192.615(a).\n5 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(e).\n\n\n\n5\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.605(a) by failing to keep appropriate parts of its manual of written procedures for\nconducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency response at locations where\nsuch activities were being conducted.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.612(a), which states:\n§ 192.612 Underwater inspection and reburial of pipelines in the\nGulf of Mexico and its inlets.\n(a) Each operator shall prepare and follow a procedure to identify\nits pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico and its inlets in waters less than 15 feet\n(4.6 meters) deep as measured from mean low water that are at risk of\nbeing an exposed underwater pipeline or a hazard to navigation. The\nprocedures must be in effect August 10, 2005.\nThe Notice alleged that Trunkline violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.612(a) by failing to follow its own\nprocedure for identifying pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico and its inlets in waters less than 15 feet\n(4.6 meters) deep, as measured from mean low water, that were at risk of being exposed\nunderwater pipelines or hazards to navigation. Specifically, it alleged that Respondent\nimproperly delayed certain underwater inspections of the Terrebonne and Vermillion pipeline\nsystems because of a “lack of resources,” rather than on the basis of risk.\nTrunkline’s procedure stated that the company would “develop and maintain an inspection plan\nprioritized by the calculated risk for each underwater pipeline segment based on specific\nidentified threats…”6 The procedure set out a list of 10 specific threats that had to be\nconsidered, but did not require that inspections be performed by a date certain.\n7 The record\nincludes two versions of Respondent’s inspection plan, namely, from August and November\n2006.8 The plans listed the threats specified in the procedure and assigned a value to each one.\n9\nThe August and November plans were identical, except for the addition of dates for recent\nhurricanes, dates for the next scheduled underwater inspection, and the inclusion of a note on the\nNovember plan that stated, “plan revised to indicate surveys moved to 2nd Qtr. 2007 due to lack\nof survey resources.”10\nThough it is clear that a “lack of survey resources” played a role in Trunkline’s decision to delay\nthe underwater inspection,\n11\nRespondent’s procedure did not prohibit it from considering this\n6 Hearing Exhibit, PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY AND TRUNKLINE GAS COMPANY, STANDARD\nOPERATING PROCEDURES, 1-6110, OFFSHORE FACILITIES & SHALLOW COVER INSPECTIONS, 10 (MAR. 9, 2006).\n7 Id.\n8 Hearing Exhibit, OFFSHORE UNDERWATER DOC SURVEY PLANS (AUG. 21 AND NOV. 12, 2006).\n9 Trunkline’s procedure required that the year of installation be considered when developing the inspection plan, but\nthe company’s plans did not list this threat. Neither party raised this issue and I find it immaterial to the allegation.\n10 Hearing Exhibit, OFFSHORE UNDERWATER DOC SURVEY PLAN (NOV. 12, 2006).\n11 Hearing Exhibit, OFFSHORE UNDERWATER DOC SURVEY PLAN (AUG. 21 AND NOV. 12, 2006).\n\n\n\n6\nfactor. Respondent’s August and November inspection plans both addressed and weighted\nthreats, as required by the procedure. Respondent also submitted a memo on the company’s\ndecision-making process for delaying the inspections, including how risks were assessed.\nthe hearing, OPS observed that the weights assigned to the risk factors in Trunkline’s plan did\nnot change from August to November and questioned whether an analysis had been done.\nTrunkline responded that its method for calculating risk was not sensitive enough to show\nchanges in risk in this case.\n12 At\nWhile Trunkline’s inspection plans and risk calculations are indeed limited, there is insufficient\nevidence to prove that Respondent failed to follow its own procedures. Furthermore, Trunkline’s\nprocedures did not preclude it from considering a “lack of survey resources” when scheduling\nunderwater inspections. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 6 be withdrawn.\nWITHDRAWAL OF PENALTY\nThe Notice proposed civil penalties of $24,000 for Item 2 and $31,000 for Item 6. Having\nwithdrawn both items, I hereby withdraw the proposed penalties associated with these items.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2, 3, 5 and 6 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.477, 192.479(a), 192.605(a) and 192.612(a), respectively.\nHaving withdrawn Items 2 and 6, no compliance order is appropriate for these items. Under 49\nU.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601. The Director indicates that Respondent has taken the following actions\nspecified in the proposed compliance order:\nWith respect to the violation of § 192.605(a) (Item 5), Respondent has\nsubmitted a copy of an acceptable site-specific emergency plan for the\nShip Shoal 139 compressor platform.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,\nthe compliance terms proposed for Item 5 is not included in this Order.\nThe proposed compliance order also included a paragraph that would require Trunkline to\nmaintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling the\nCompliance Order and report the total costs.13 Respondent raised numerous issues with this\n12 Hearing Exhibit, TRUNKLINE GAS COMPANY UNDERWATER INSPECTION PLAN ASSESSMENT. Respondent stated\nthat this document was a “contemporaneous memo authored by the individual responsible for such\ndecisionmaking…” but the document contains no date or attribution. The lack of such information reduces the\nprobative value of the document as a contemporaneous account of Trunkline’s basis for delaying the survey.\n13 Notice at 5.\n\n\n\n7\nprovision, including the purpose of collecting such information, how it would be used, its public\navailability, and PHMSA’s statutory and regulatory authority to require the information.14\nAfter considering this requirement in light of Trunkline’s comments, I find that this provision\nwould not affect compliance with the pipeline safety regulations because there is no pipeline\nsafety regulation requiring pipeline operators to maintain information on safety improvement\ncosts. Furthermore, I find that the provision would not affect compliance with 49 U.S.C. chapter\n601. While PHMSA may have valid reasons to collect this information, including tracking the\nfinancial impact of compliance orders, I see no basis for ordering this conduct when an operator\nhas objected. Accordingly, I do not include the cost information provision in this Order.\nAs for the remaining compliance term, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49\nC.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following action to ensure compliance with\nthe pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\nWith respect to the violation of § 192.479(a) (Item 3), within 90 days of receipt of this\nFinal Order, Respondent shall clean and coat the areas of atmospheric corrosion on its\npipeline facilities at South Timbalier 151 and South Timbalier 63, or replace such\nfacilities, and shall submit documentation of compliance to the Director, Southwest\nRegion, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.\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 and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not\nto exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1 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. § 192.475(a) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect the\ninternal surface of a pipeline spool piece for evidence of corrosion. The spool\npiece was removed during a 2006 pig launcher and receiver project on a 10-inch\npipeline from South Timbalier 52 to South Peltier 25; and\n49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to keep records\nnecessary to administer the procedures established under § 192.605. Specifically,\nTrunkline’s failure to document certain abnormal operating conditions.\n14 Response at 4.\n\n\n\n8\nTrunkline contested Item 4, arguing that its procedures required abnormal operations, not\nabnormal operating conditions, to be documented. Section 192.605(c) is entitled “Abnormal\noperation” and provides that the manual required by § 192.605(a) “must include procedures….to\nprovide safety when operating design limits have been exceeded.” This section does not\nspecifically require operators to document abnormal operating conditions. Furthermore, neither\nRespondent nor OPS included such procedures in the record, so I am unable to verify whether\nthey required documentation of abnormal operating conditions. Based upon the foregoing, I\nhereby order that Item 4 be withdrawn.\nAccordingly, having considered such information, I find, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, that a\nprobable violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.475(a) (Notice Item 1) has occurred and Respondent is\nhereby advised to correct such conditions. In the event that OPS finds a violation of this item in\na 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. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all\nother terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":24446}