{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420081019","title":"LINDE — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2008-11-17","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.481.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420081019.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420081019.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420081019","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420081019","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving LINDE. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.481. The case was opened on 2008-11-17 and is reported as closed as of 2009-12-18. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420081019_FinalOrder_12182009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420081019/420081019_FinalOrder_12182009.pdf\n\n420081019_FinalOrder_12182009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420081019/420081019_FinalOrder_12182009_text.pdf\n\n420081019_nopvpco_11172008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420081019/420081019_nopvpco_11172008.pdf\n\n420081019_Operator Response_12162008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420081019/420081019_Operator%20Response_12162008.pdf\n\n420081019_FinalOrder_12182009_text.pdf\n\nDEC 18 2009\nMs. Elizabeth Casciani\nVice President, Operations and Services\nPraxair, Inc.\n39 Old Ridgebury Rd.\nDanbury, CT 06810\nRe: CPF No. 4-2008-1019\nDear Ms. Casciani:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the allegation of\nviolation and the proposed compliance order specified in the Notice. This case is now closed.\nService of this document is in 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\nMr. James R. Ryan\nPipeline Regulatory Compliance Manager\nPraxair, Inc.\n203 Valle Vista Court\nMinooka, IL 60447\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 0390 0005 6162 5265]\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 )\nPraxair, Inc., ) CPF No. 4-2008-1019\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn June 16–20, 2008, 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 Praxair, Inc.\n(Praxair or Respondent) in Deer Park, Texas. Respondent operates approximately 325 miles of\nnatural gas pipelines, primarily in Texas, including a 232-mile pipeline between Deer Park,\nTexas, and Lake Charles, Louisiana.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated November 17, 2008, 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 a violation of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violation.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated December 16, 2008 (Response). Respondent\ncontested the allegation of violation and the proposed compliance order. Respondent did not\nrequest a hearing, and therefore has waived its right to one.\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION\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. § 192.481, which states:\n§ 192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that\nis exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as\nfollows:\n\n\n\n2\nIf the pipeline is\nlocated: Then the frequency of inspection is:\nOnshore . . . . . . . At least once every 3 calendar years, but with\nintervals not exceeding 39 months\nOffshore . . . . . . . At least once each calendar year, but with intervals\nnot exceeding 15 months\n(b) During inspections the operator must give particular attention to\npipe at soil-to-air interfaces, under thermal insulation, under disbonded\ncoatings, at pipe supports, in splash zones, at deck penetrations, and in\nspans over water.\n(c) If atmospheric corrosion is found during an inspection, the operator\nmust provide protection against the corrosion as required by § 192.479.1\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 192.481(b) and (c) by failing to give particular\nattention to certain pipeline features during atmospheric corrosion inspections, and by failing to\nprovide protection against corrosion found during such inspections. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged there were several areas of piping, flanges, and other components, such as valve\nassemblies at highways, Valve Numbers 73, 1410, 563, and 46, and portions of the booster\nstation at Deer Park, that exhibited heavy atmospheric corrosion. The Notice further alleged that\nPraxair did not provide documentation that the company had performed “monitoring for\natmospheric corrosion” at these sites.\n2\nIn its Response, Respondent contended that it had inspected the subject valve stations quarterly\nduring regularly scheduled right-of-way and leak survey patrols, including only a couple months\nprior to the OPS inspection. Respondent also explained that the corrosion observed on the\nnamed valve stations during the OPS inspection had been documented on the recent patrol\nrecords. Respondent submitted the patrol reports to support its contention.\nRespondent further explained that the corroded areas on the in-service pipe had been inspected to\ndetermine depth of corrosion, and calculations had been made to determine the remaining\nstrength of the pipe. The calculations indicated that the corrosion was not severe enough to\njeopardize pipeline operations. Respondent submitted the corrosion inspection and analysis\nreports to support its explanation. Respondent also argued that it had scheduled remediation of\nthe corrosion, that coating remediation was underway at the time of the OPS inspection.\nRespondent submitted contractor invoices for painting to support this contention.\nRespondent also indicated that the areas with the worst corrosion observed during the OPS\ninspection were valve station bypass lines, which were out of service, purged, and isolated at the\ntime of the OPS inspection. In fact, those bypass lines had been out of service since pipeline\nstartup in 2002. Praxair had made a decision to remove such pipelines, and therefore they were\nnot repainted. Work had already been started to remove the bypass sections at the time of the\n1 The Notice misidentified § 192.481(b) and (c) as “(a)” and “(b),” respectively.\n2 Notice at 2.\n\n\n\n3\nOPS inspection. Respondent submitted contractor quotes, invoices and a photo of a bypass line\nto support its position.\nSection 192.481 requires that pipeline operators inspect each onshore pipeline that is exposed to\nthe atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once every 3 calendar years, but\nwithin intervals not exceeding 39 months. During the inspections, an operator must give\nparticular attention to certain pipeline features, such as pipe at soil-to-air interfaces, under\nthermal insulation, under disbonded coatings, and at pipe supports. If atmospheric corrosion is\nfound during an inspection, the operator must provide protection against the corrosion.\nAlthough the Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 192.481 by failing to “monitoring for\natmospheric corrosion,\n” Respondent has submitted documentation demonstrating that the\ncompany inspected the subject valve stations a couple months before OPS’s June 2008\ninspection. The corrosion that had been observed during the OPS inspection, had already been\ndocumented on Praxair’s patrol records dated April and May 2008 and the company had already\nbegun to remediate the corrosion at the time of the OPS inspection as demonstrated by contractor\ninvoices. In addition, the worst corrosion observed was on several bypass lines that had been\nremoved from service and Respondent had already begun to remove such bypass sections at the\ntime of the OPS inspection, as demonstrated by work quotes dated May 2008.\nThe evidence produced by OPS in the Pipeline Safety Violation Report, dated November 17,\n2008, consists of Praxair’s written procedures for conducting atmospheric corrosion inspections\nand for remediating corrosion, but the Violation Report provides no further evidence to\ndemonstrate either that Respondent failed to give particular attention to the pipeline features\nspecified in § 192.481(b) or that it failed to provide protection against any corrosion found, as\nspecified in § 192.481(c).\nAccordingly, after considering all the evidence, I find that the record does not contain a\nsufficient basis for this probable violation. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby withdraw Item 1.\nAs a consequence, the terms of the proposed compliance order associated with Item 1 are also\nwithdrawn.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service.\n___________________________________ __________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":9021}