{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420075048","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":"2007-12-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.412(a), 195.434, 195.555, 195.571, 195.577(a), 195.583(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420075048.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420075048.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420075048","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420075048","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TARGA MIDSTREAM SERVICES, L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.412(a),  195.434,  195.555,  195.571,  195.577(a),  195.583(b). The case was opened on 2007-12-13 and is reported as closed as of 2011-04-26. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420075048_Closure_04262011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075048/420075048_Closure_04262011.pdf\n\n420075048_Closure_04262011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075048/420075048_Closure_04262011_text.pdf\n\n420075048_Final Order_04022010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075048/420075048_Final%20Order_04022010.pdf\n\n420075048_Final Order_04022010_save.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075048/420075048_Final%20Order_04022010_save.pdf\n\n420075048_NOPV and PCO_12132007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075048/420075048_NOPV%20and%20PCO_12132007.pdf\n\n420075048_Operator Response nopvpco_01112008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075048/420075048_Operator%20Response%20nopvpco_01112008.pdf\n\n420075048_Final Order_04022010.pdf\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E.\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nSafety Administration\nAPR 2 2010\nMr. Marc O. Breitling\nVice President\nTarga Midstream Services LP\n1000 Louisiana St., Suite 4300\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2007-5048\nDear Mr. Breitling:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation\nand specifies actions that need to be taken by Targa Midstream Services LP to comply with the\npipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as\ndetermined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service\nof the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nMauk Magy\nfor: Jeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA\nMr. Tim Huffer, Manager, Regulatory Compliance, Targa Midstream Services LP\n1000 Louisiana St., Houston, TX 77002\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7009 1410 0000 2472 5286]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\nTarga Midstream Services LP,\nCPF No. 4-2007-5048\nRespondent.\n)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn August 27 - September 1, 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 Targa\nMidstream Services LP (Targa or Respondent) in Louisiana and Texas. Targa, a subsidiary of\nTarga Resources, Inc., owns and operates natural gas gathering and natural gas liquid pipelines,\nnatural gas processing plants, and storage terminals primarily located in the southern region of\nthe United States.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated December 13, 2007, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Respondent had committed violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letters dated January 11, 2008, and March 13, 2008\n(collectively, Response). Respondent contested several allegations and provided information\nconcerning the corrective actions it had taken. Respondent did not request a hearing and\ntherefore had waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent committed certain violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as\nfollows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.555, which states:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 195.555 What are the qualifications for supervisors?\nYou must require and verify that supervisors maintain a thorough\nknowledge of that portion of the corrosion control procedures established\nunder § 195.402(c)(3) for which they are responsible for insuring\ncompliance.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.555 by failing to require and verify that\nsupervisors maintained a thorough knowledge of that portion of the corrosion control procedures\nfor which they are responsible for insuring compliance. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nTarga did not have a qualified supervisor overseeing its cathodic protection program. The\nNotice further alleged that Respondent's DOT Coordinator and Pipeline Technicians, who were\nresponsible for reviewing rectifier inspection documentation and pipe-to-soil readings to\ndetermine if corrective actions or further testing were needed, were not NACE certified as\nspecified by Targa's operations and maintenance procedures and 49 C.F.R. § 195.555.\nIn its Response, Targa did not contest the allegation and stated that the company had amended its\nprocedures to specify the qualifications required for certain corrosion control program\nemployees. Accordingly, after considering all the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. § 195.555 by failing to ensure that its corrosion control supervisors maintained a thorough\nknowledge of that portion of the corrosion control procedures for which they were responsible.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571, which states:\n§ 195.571 What criteria must I use to determine the adequacy of\ncathodic protection?\nCathodic protection required by this subpart must comply with one or\nmore of the applicable criteria and other considerations for cathodic\nprotection contained in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of NACE Standard RP\n0169 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.571 by failing to ensure that cathodic\nprotection on its pipeline complied with applicable NACE criteria. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that annual pipe-to-soil surveys for years 2004 and 2005 demonstrated that certain test\nlocations did not meet the applicable -850 mV criterion.\nIn its Response, Targa did not contest the allegation and stated the company had taken corrective\nmeasures to remediate certain cathodic protection deficiencies. Accordingly, after considering\nall the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571 by failing to comply with\napplicable cathodic protection criteria for survey years 2004 and 2005.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.577(a), which states:\n§ 195.577 What must I do to alleviate interference currents?\n(a) For pipelines exposed to stray currents, you must have a program\nto identify, test for, and minimize the detrimental effects of such currents.\n\n\n\n3\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.577(a) by failing to have a program to\nidentify, test for, and minimize the detrimental effects of stray currents. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that certain annual pipe-to-soil survey readings for calendar year 2005 showed casing\npotentials that were nearly the same as the pipe, indicating possible interference. The Notice\nalso alleged certain \"instant off\" readings were higher than the corresponding \"on\" readings, also\nan indication of possible interference. The Notice further alleged Respondent could not\ndemonstrate that it had an adequate program for testing interference at such locations.\nIn its Response, Targa explained that its practice was to test casings if a potential was within 100\nmV of the pipeline potential to determine if it was shorted. Respondent also explained that its\nprocedures specified interference or stray current effects should be investigated when conditions\nwere found to indicate possible interference. Targa stated in its Response that it had reviewed its\ncathodic protection readings for the subsequent year (2007) and found no conditions that\nindicated possible interference or effects from stray currents, including no \"instant off\" readings\nthat were higher than the \"on\" readings.\nAfter a review of the evidence, I find that the pipe-to-soil survey readings for calendar year 2005\nindicated several locations where \"instant off\" readings were the same as or higher than the \"on\"\nreadings, indicating possible interference. Respondent did not submit documentation in response\nto the Notice to demonstrate it had an adequate program for testing interference at appropriate\nlocations, other than to explain generally that it tested casings, investigated stray current effects,\nand reviewed annual survey readings. Annual surveys are normally a component of an\ninterference testing and alleviation program, but additional data and studies are oftentimes\nrequired (such as close interval surveys) to ensure damage is not occurring due to interference\ncurrents, particularly at foreign pipeline crossings and right-of-ways shared with multiple\npipelines using separate cathodic protection systems. Respondent did not demonstrate it had a\nprogram sufficient to identify, test for, and minimize the detrimental effects of interference\ncurrents.\nAccordingly, after considering all the evidence, I find Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.577(a) by failing to have an adequate program to identify, test for, and minimize the\ndetrimental effects of interference currents on pipelines.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a), which states:\n§ 195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable\nwaters.\n(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least\n26 times each calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent\nto each pipeline right-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking,\ndriving, flying or other appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.412(a) by failing to inspect the surface\nconditions on or adjacent to each pipeline right-of-way. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nTarga had failed to maintain its right-of-way in a condition that enabled adequate patrolling.\nCertain locations were alleged to have been overgrown with vegetation, obscuring pipeline\n\n\n\nmarkers and making it difficult to determine the pipeline route. In addition, the Notice alleged\nthere were locations that did not have adequate pipeline markers to accurately determine the\nlocation of the pipeline, including unmarked points where the pipeline route changed and places\nwhere markers had been knocked down or damaged.\nIn its Response, Targa did not contest the allegation, but provided information concerning the\ncorrective action it had taken. Accordingly, after considering all the evidence, I find Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) by failing to maintain its pipeline right-of-way to enable\ninspection of surface conditions.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.434, which states:\n§ 195.434 Signs.\nEach operator must maintain signs visible to the public around each\npumping station and breakout tank area. Each sign must contain the name\nof the operator and a telephone number (including area code) where the\noperator can be reached at all times.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.434 by failing to maintain signs around each\nstation that contained the name of the operator. Specifically, the Notice alleged that in several\nareas, including at the entrance to the Sour Lake Pump Station and along long spans of perimeter\nfencing, Respondent did not have signs identifying Targa as the operator. Targa personnel stated\nduring the inspection that certain signs had been stolen at one location and that the company was\nin the process of replacing them.\nIn its Response, Targa did not contest the allegation and submitted information concerning the\ncorrective action it had taken. Accordingly, after considering the evidence, I find Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 195.434 by failing to maintain signs around each station that identified the\noperator's name.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(c), which states:\n§ 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?\n(a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is\nexposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion ....\n(c) If you find atmospheric corrosion during an inspection, you must\nprovide protection against the corrosion as required by § 195.581.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.583(c) by failing to provide protection against\natmospheric corrosion for an exposed pipeline segment near the Highway 69 crossing.' The\nNotice alleged further that the pipe wrap was damaged, apparently by pedestrians using the\nexposed pipe to cross a drainage ditch, and a surface oxide was evident on the exposed areas.\n' The Notice quoted § 195.583(c), but misidentified the regulation as § 195.583(b).\n\n\n\n5\nIn its Response, Targa contested the allegation and explained that the referenced section near the\nHighway 69 crossing was not a pipeline segment but a casing. Respondent submitted\nphotographs of the section, showing a casing vent above a buried portion of the segment in\nproximity to the exposed section. Respondent also submitted documentation of its repair of the\ndamaged coating on the section.\nDuring the 2006 PHMSA inspection of the referenced location, it was the PHMSA inspector's\nimpression, based on certain evidence, that the referenced section was a pipeline subject to the\ninspection and remediation requirements in § 195.583. First, it would be unusual to see a casing\nwith the type of pipe wrap coating that was visible on the exposed facility. Second, Targa\nrepresentatives indicated to the inspector that a new highway crossing had been bored and the\n\"cased segment\" had been removed. Third, although there was a vent pipe protruding from the\nground above a buried portion of the facility in question near the exposed section, the operator\ndid not produce any documentation or configuration diagrams to prove that the vent pipe was\nactually connected to the exposed section. Finally, there was not a second vent pipe downstream\non the other side of the exposure.\nAlthough Respondent has contended that the exposed section was a casing rather than an\nexposed pipeline, I do not find evidence in the record supporting this assertion. Respondent\nsubmitted a photograph of the vent pipe in proximity to the section, but did not demonstrate\ndefinitively that the vent pipe was actually welded to the exposed section. Such definitive proof\nwould be, at a minimum, submission of an \"as built\" drawing, but more probative would be\nevidence that Respondent excavated and visually examined the configuration. That evidence is\nnecessary because it is entirely possible that the vent pipe is attached to a casing that ends prior\nto the exposed section of pipe. In fact, such configuration is supported by the above-referenced\nstatements made by Targa to the PHMSA inspector.\nAccordingly, after considering the evidence, I find that Respondent operated an exposed pipeline\nnear the Highway 69 crossing and that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(c) by failing to\nprovide protection against atmospheric corrosion for the pipeline.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to each of the violations. Under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids by pipeline or\nwho owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under chapter 601. The Director has indicated that Respondent has taken\nthe following actions to address some of the cited violations:\nIn regards to § 195.555 (Item 1), Respondent has modified its procedures to specify the\nqualifications of its corrosion control program supervisor and has submitted the\n\n\n\n6\ncredentials for employees assigned responsibility for the cathodic protection program.\nIn regards to § 195.412(a) (Item 4), Respondent has demonstrated that it cleared the\nrights-of-way in question and amended its procedures to specify that the condition of line\nmarkers will be assessed during annual maintenance.\nIn regards to § 195.434 (Item 5), Respondent installed signs at the locations in question\nthat identify Targa as the operator.\nIn regards to § 195.583(c) (Item 6), Respondent has recoated the facility at issue to\nprotect against atmospheric corrosion.\nAccordingly, since compliance has been achieved with respect to Items 1, 4, 5, and 6, the\ncompliance terms associated with those items are not included in this Order.\nAs for the remaining compliance terms, Respondent indicated that it has taken certain actions,\nbut for the following reasons, I do not find the corresponding compliance terms have been\ncompletely satisfied.\nIn regards to § 195.571 (Item 2), Respondent has provided annual cathodic protection survey\nreadings for 2007 that indicated most of the deficiencies in cathodic protection were corrected in\naccordance with § 195.571. There was one test station on the 12-inch pipeline, however, and\nfour test stations on the 4-inch pipeline that are still in need of repair.\nIn regards to § 195.577(a) (Item 3), Respondent has reviewed its 2007 annual cathodic protection\nsurvey for the pipelines in question and found no conditions that indicated possible interference\nor effects from stray currents. Respondent did not demonstrate, however, that it has an adequate\nprogram for interference testing. Review of annual cathodic protection survey records may be a\npart of an adequate program, but additional data and studies may be required such as close\ninterval surveys, particularly at foreign pipeline crossings and shared rights-of-way.\nAccordingly, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217,\nRespondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety\nregulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.571 (Item 2), Respondent must submit\ndocumentation demonstrating that the applicable cathodic protection criteria are being\nmet at the five remaining test stations, as required by § 195.571 and Targa's written\noperations and maintenance procedures.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.577(a) (Item 3), Respondent must submit\ndocumentation demonstrating that the company has a program to test for interference\ncurrents and that the program has been implemented. The program must include testing\nto detect interference currents, determining whether such interference currents are having\nor have had a detrimental effect on the pipeline, and any necessary actions to minimize or\neliminate the effects of the interference currents, as required by § 195.577. In addition, if\ndamage to the pipeline is discovered in the process of performing interference testing,\n\n\n\n7\nTarga must submit documentation demonstrating that such damage has been repaired, as\nrequired by § 195.404(c)(1).\n3. Maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this\nCompliance Order and report the total cost as follows: (a) total cost associated with\npreparation, revision of plans and procedures, and performance of studies and analyses;\nand (b) total cost associated with physical changes, if any, to the pipeline infrastructure,\nincluding replacements and additions.\n4. Complete each of the above items and submit documentation of compliance within 90\ndays of receipt of this Final Order. Documentation shall be submitted to the Director,\nSouthwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, 8701 South Gessner Dr, Suite 1110,\nHouston, TX 77074-2949.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent demonstrating good cause for an extension.\nFailure to comply with this 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.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. If submitting a petition, the petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator,\nOffice of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor,\nWashington, DC 20590, and a copy sent to the Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address.\nThe petition must be received within 20 days of service, but may be considered timely if\nreceived within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this Final Order. The petition must contain a\nbrief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The terms\nof the Final Order, including any required corrective action, shall remain in full force and effect\nunless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this\nFinal Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nAlan't Waly\n'APR 2. 2010\nfor: Jeffrey D. Wiese\nDate Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n420075048_Final Order_04022010_save.pdf\n\nAPR 2 2010\nMr. Marc O. Breitling\nVice President\nTarga Midstream Services LP\n1000 Louisiana St., Suite 4300\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2007-5048\nDear Mr. Breitling:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation\nand specifies actions that need to be taken by Targa Midstream Services LP to comply with the\npipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as\ndetermined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service\nof the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided 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. R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA\nMr. Tim Huffer, Manager, Regulatory Compliance, Targa Midstream Services LP\n1000 Louisiana St., Houston, TX 77002\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7009 1410 0000 2472 5286]\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. 4-2007-5048\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn August 27 – September 1, 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 Targa\nMidstream Services LP (Targa or Respondent) in Louisiana and Texas. Targa, a subsidiary of\nTarga Resources, Inc., owns and operates natural gas gathering and natural gas liquid pipelines,\nnatural gas processing plants, and storage terminals primarily located in the southern region of\nthe United States.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated December 13, 2007, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Respondent had committed violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letters dated January 11, 2008, and March 13, 2008\n(collectively, Response). Respondent contested several allegations and provided information\nconcerning the corrective actions it had taken. Respondent did not request a hearing and\ntherefore had waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent committed certain violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as\nfollows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.555, which states:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 195.555 What are the qualifications for supervisors?\nYou must require and verify that supervisors maintain a thorough\nknowledge of that portion of the corrosion control procedures established\nunder § 195.402(c)(3) for which they are responsible for insuring\ncompliance.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.555 by failing to require and verify that\nsupervisors maintained a thorough knowledge of that portion of the corrosion control procedures\nfor which they are responsible for insuring compliance. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nTarga did not have a qualified supervisor overseeing its cathodic protection program. The\nNotice further alleged that Respondent’s DOT Coordinator and Pipeline Technicians, who were\nresponsible for reviewing rectifier inspection documentation and pipe-to-soil readings to\ndetermine if corrective actions or further testing were needed, were not NACE certified as\nspecified by Targa’s operations and maintenance procedures and 49 C.F.R. § 195.555.\nIn its Response, Targa did not contest the allegation and stated that the company had amended its\nprocedures to specify the qualifications required for certain corrosion control program\nemployees. Accordingly, after considering all the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. § 195.555 by failing to ensure that its corrosion control supervisors maintained a thorough\nknowledge of that portion of the corrosion control procedures for which they were responsible.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571, which states:\n§ 195.571 What criteria must I use to determine the adequacy of\ncathodic protection?\nCathodic protection required by this subpart must comply with one or\nmore of the applicable criteria and other considerations for cathodic\nprotection contained in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of NACE Standard RP\n0169 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.571 by failing to ensure that cathodic\nprotection on its pipeline complied with applicable NACE criteria. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that annual pipe-to-soil surveys for years 2004 and 2005 demonstrated that certain test\nlocations did not meet the applicable -850 mV criterion.\nIn its Response, Targa did not contest the allegation and stated the company had taken corrective\nmeasures to remediate certain cathodic protection deficiencies. Accordingly, after considering\nall the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571 by failing to comply with\napplicable cathodic protection criteria for survey years 2004 and 2005.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.577(a), which states:\n§ 195.577 What must I do to alleviate interference currents?\n(a) For pipelines exposed to stray currents, you must have a program\nto identify, test for, and minimize the detrimental effects of such currents.\n\n\n\n3\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.577(a) by failing to have a program to\nidentify, test for, and minimize the detrimental effects of stray currents. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that certain annual pipe-to-soil survey readings for calendar year 2005 showed casing\npotentials that were nearly the same as the pipe, indicating possible interference. The Notice\nalso alleged certain “instant off” readings were higher than the corresponding “on” readings, also\nan indication of possible interference. The Notice further alleged Respondent could not\ndemonstrate that it had an adequate program for testing interference at such locations.\nIn its Response, Targa explained that its practice was to test casings if a potential was within 100\nmV of the pipeline potential to determine if it was shorted. Respondent also explained that its\nprocedures specified interference or stray current effects should be investigated when conditions\nwere found to indicate possible interference. Targa stated in its Response that it had reviewed its\ncathodic protection readings for the subsequent year (2007) and found no conditions that\nindicated possible interference or effects from stray currents, including no “instant off” readings\nthat were higher than the “on” readings.\nAfter a review of the evidence, I find that the pipe-to-soil survey readings for calendar year 2005\nindicated several locations where “instant off” readings were the same as or higher than the “on”\nreadings, indicating possible interference. Respondent did not submit documentation in response\nto the Notice to demonstrate it had an adequate program for testing interference at appropriate\nlocations, other than to explain generally that it tested casings, investigated stray current effects,\nand reviewed annual survey readings. Annual surveys are normally a component of an\ninterference testing and alleviation program, but additional data and studies are oftentimes\nrequired (such as close interval surveys) to ensure damage is not occurring due to interference\ncurrents, particularly at foreign pipeline crossings and right-of-ways shared with multiple\npipelines using separate cathodic protection systems. Respondent did not demonstrate it had a\nprogram sufficient to identify, test for, and minimize the detrimental effects of interference\ncurrents.\nAccordingly, after considering all the evidence, I find Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.577(a) by failing to have an adequate program to identify, test for, and minimize the\ndetrimental effects of interference currents on pipelines.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a), which states:\n§ 195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable\nwaters.\n(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least\n26 times each calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent\nto each pipeline right-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking,\ndriving, flying or other appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.412(a) by failing to inspect the surface\nconditions on or adjacent to each pipeline right-of-way. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nTarga had failed to maintain its right-of-way in a condition that enabled adequate patrolling.\nCertain locations were alleged to have been overgrown with vegetation, obscuring pipeline\n\n\n\n4\nmarkers and making it difficult to determine the pipeline route. In addition, the Notice alleged\nthere were locations that did not have adequate pipeline markers to accurately determine the\nlocation of the pipeline, including unmarked points where the pipeline route changed and places\nwhere markers had been knocked down or damaged.\nIn its Response, Targa did not contest the allegation, but provided information concerning the\ncorrective action it had taken. Accordingly, after considering all the evidence, I find Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) by failing to maintain its pipeline right-of-way to enable\ninspection of surface conditions.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.434, which states:\n§ 195.434 Signs.\nEach operator must maintain signs visible to the public around each\npumping station and breakout tank area. Each sign must contain the name\nof the operator and a telephone number (including area code) where the\noperator can be reached at all times.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.434 by failing to maintain signs around each\nstation that contained the name of the operator. Specifically, the Notice alleged that in several\nareas, including at the entrance to the Sour Lake Pump Station and along long spans of perimeter\nfencing, Respondent did not have signs identifying Targa as the operator. Targa personnel stated\nduring the inspection that certain signs had been stolen at one location and that the company was\nin the process of replacing them.\nIn its Response, Targa did not contest the allegation and submitted information concerning the\ncorrective action it had taken. Accordingly, after considering the evidence, I find Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 195.434 by failing to maintain signs around each station that identified the\noperator’s name.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(c), which states:\n§ 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?\n(a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is\nexposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion . . . .\n(c) If you find atmospheric corrosion during an inspection, you must\nprovide protection against the corrosion as required by § 195.581.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.583(c) by failing to provide protection against\natmospheric corrosion for an exposed pipeline segment near the Highway 69 crossing.\nNotice alleged further that the pipe wrap was damaged, apparently by pedestrians using the\nexposed pipe to cross a drainage ditch, and a surface oxide was evident on the exposed areas.\n1 The\n1 The Notice quoted § 195.583(c), but misidentified the regulation as § 195.583(b).\n\n\n\n5\nIn its Response, Targa contested the allegation and explained that the referenced section near the\nHighway 69 crossing was not a pipeline segment but a casing. Respondent submitted\nphotographs of the section, showing a casing vent above a buried portion of the segment in\nproximity to the exposed section. Respondent also submitted documentation of its repair of the\ndamaged coating on the section.\nDuring the 2006 PHMSA inspection of the referenced location, it was the PHMSA inspector’s\nimpression, based on certain evidence, that the referenced section was a pipeline subject to the\ninspection and remediation requirements in § 195.583. First, it would be unusual to see a casing\nwith the type of pipe wrap coating that was visible on the exposed facility. Second, Targa\nrepresentatives indicated to the inspector that a new highway crossing had been bored and the\n“cased segment” had been removed. Third, although there was a vent pipe protruding from the\nground above a buried portion of the facility in question near the exposed section, the operator\ndid not produce any documentation or configuration diagrams to prove that the vent pipe was\nactually connected to the exposed section. Finally, there was not a second vent pipe downstream\non the other side of the exposure.\nAlthough Respondent has contended that the exposed section was a casing rather than an\nexposed pipeline, I do not find evidence in the record supporting this assertion. Respondent\nsubmitted a photograph of the vent pipe in proximity to the section, but did not demonstrate\ndefinitively that the vent pipe was actually welded to the exposed section. Such definitive proof\nwould be, at a minimum, submission of an “as built” drawing, but more probative would be\nevidence that Respondent excavated and visually examined the configuration. That evidence is\nnecessary because it is entirely possible that the vent pipe is attached to a casing that ends prior\nto the exposed section of pipe. In fact, such configuration is supported by the above-referenced\nstatements made by Targa to the PHMSA inspector.\nAccordingly, after considering the evidence, I find that Respondent operated an exposed pipeline\nnear the Highway 69 crossing and that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(c) by failing to\nprovide protection against atmospheric corrosion for the pipeline.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to each of the violations. Under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids by pipeline or\nwho owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under chapter 601. The Director has indicated that Respondent has taken\nthe following actions to address some of the cited violations:\nIn regards to § 195.555 (Item 1), Respondent has modified its procedures to specify the\nqualifications of its corrosion control program supervisor and has submitted the\n\n\n\n6\ncredentials for employees assigned responsibility for the cathodic protection program.\nIn regards to § 195.412(a) (Item 4), Respondent has demonstrated that it cleared the\nrights-of-way in question and amended its procedures to specify that the condition of line\nmarkers will be assessed during annual maintenance.\nIn regards to § 195.434 (Item 5), Respondent installed signs at the locations in question\nthat identify Targa as the operator.\nIn regards to § 195.583(c) (Item 6), Respondent has recoated the facility at issue to\nprotect against atmospheric corrosion.\nAccordingly, since compliance has been achieved with respect to Items 1, 4, 5, and 6, the\ncompliance terms associated with those items are not included in this Order.\nAs for the remaining compliance terms, Respondent indicated that it has taken certain actions,\nbut for the following reasons, I do not find the corresponding compliance terms have been\ncompletely satisfied.\nIn regards to § 195.571 (Item 2), Respondent has provided annual cathodic protection survey\nreadings for 2007 that indicated most of the deficiencies in cathodic protection were corrected in\naccordance with § 195.571. There was one test station on the 12-inch pipeline, however, and\nfour test stations on the 4-inch pipeline that are still in need of repair.\nIn regards to § 195.577(a) (Item 3), Respondent has reviewed its 2007 annual cathodic protection\nsurvey for the pipelines in question and found no conditions that indicated possible interference\nor effects from stray currents. Respondent did not demonstrate, however, that it has an adequate\nprogram for interference testing. Review of annual cathodic protection survey records may be a\npart of an adequate program, but additional data and studies may be required such as close\ninterval surveys, particularly at foreign pipeline crossings and shared rights-of-way.\nAccordingly, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217,\nRespondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety\nregulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.571 (Item 2), Respondent must submit\ndocumentation demonstrating that the applicable cathodic protection criteria are being\nmet at the five remaining test stations, as required by § 195.571 and Targa’s written\noperations and maintenance procedures.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.577(a) (Item 3), Respondent must submit\ndocumentation demonstrating that the company has a program to test for interference\ncurrents and that the program has been implemented. The program must include testing\nto detect interference currents, determining whether such interference currents are having\nor have had a detrimental effect on the pipeline, and any necessary actions to minimize or\neliminate the effects of the interference currents, as required by § 195.577. In addition, if\ndamage to the pipeline is discovered in the process of performing interference testing,\n\n\n\n7\nTarga must submit documentation demonstrating that such damage has been repaired, as\nrequired by § 195.404(c)(1).\n3. Maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this\nCompliance Order and report the total cost as follows: (a) total cost associated with\npreparation, revisio","truncated":true,"body_characters":42867}