# LINDE — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

420081019_FinalOrder_12182009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420081019/420081019_FinalOrder_12182009.pdf

420081019_FinalOrder_12182009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420081019/420081019_FinalOrder_12182009_text.pdf

420081019_nopvpco_11172008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420081019/420081019_nopvpco_11172008.pdf

420081019_Operator Response_12162008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420081019/420081019_Operator%20Response_12162008.pdf

420081019_FinalOrder_12182009_text.pdf

DEC 18 2009
Ms. Elizabeth Casciani
Vice President, Operations and Services
Praxair, Inc.
39 Old Ridgebury Rd.
Danbury, CT 06810
Re: CPF No. 4-2008-1019
Dear Ms. Casciani:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the allegation of
violation and the proposed compliance order specified in the Notice. This case is now closed.
Service of this document is in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA
Mr. James R. Ryan
Pipeline Regulatory Compliance Manager
Praxair, Inc.
203 Valle Vista Court
Minooka, IL 60447
CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 0390 0005 6162 5265]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Praxair, Inc., ) CPF No. 4-2008-1019
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On June 16–20, 2008, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Praxair, Inc.
(Praxair or Respondent) in Deer Park, Texas. Respondent operates approximately 325 miles of
natural gas pipelines, primarily in Texas, including a 232-mile pipeline between Deer Park,
Texas, and Lake Charles, Louisiana.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated November 17, 2008, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed
Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed
finding that Respondent had committed a violation of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed ordering
Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violation.
Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated December 16, 2008 (Response). Respondent
contested the allegation of violation and the proposed compliance order. Respondent did not
request a hearing, and therefore has waived its right to one.
WITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481, which states:
§ 192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.
(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that
is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as
follows:



2
If the pipeline is
located: Then the frequency of inspection is:
Onshore . . . . . . . At least once every 3 calendar years, but with
intervals not exceeding 39 months
Offshore . . . . . . . At least once each calendar year, but with intervals
not exceeding 15 months
(b) During inspections the operator must give particular attention to
pipe at soil-to-air interfaces, under thermal insulation, under disbonded
coatings, at pipe supports, in splash zones, at deck penetrations, and in
spans over water.
(c) If atmospheric corrosion is found during an inspection, the operator
must provide protection against the corrosion as required by § 192.479.1
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 192.481(b) and (c) by failing to give particular
attention to certain pipeline features during atmospheric corrosion inspections, and by failing to
provide protection against corrosion found during such inspections. Specifically, the Notice
alleged there were several areas of piping, flanges, and other components, such as valve
assemblies at highways, Valve Numbers 73, 1410, 563, and 46, and portions of the booster
station at Deer Park, that exhibited heavy atmospheric corrosion. The Notice further alleged that
Praxair did not provide documentation that the company had performed “monitoring for
atmospheric corrosion” at these sites.
2
In its Response, Respondent contended that it had inspected the subject valve stations quarterly
during regularly scheduled right-of-way and leak survey patrols, including only a couple months
prior to the OPS inspection. Respondent also explained that the corrosion observed on the
named valve stations during the OPS inspection had been documented on the recent patrol
records. Respondent submitted the patrol reports to support its contention.
Respondent further explained that the corroded areas on the in-service pipe had been inspected to
determine depth of corrosion, and calculations had been made to determine the remaining
strength of the pipe. The calculations indicated that the corrosion was not severe enough to
jeopardize pipeline operations. Respondent submitted the corrosion inspection and analysis
reports to support its explanation. Respondent also argued that it had scheduled remediation of
the corrosion, that coating remediation was underway at the time of the OPS inspection.
Respondent submitted contractor invoices for painting to support this contention.
Respondent also indicated that the areas with the worst corrosion observed during the OPS
inspection were valve station bypass lines, which were out of service, purged, and isolated at the
time of the OPS inspection. In fact, those bypass lines had been out of service since pipeline
startup in 2002. Praxair had made a decision to remove such pipelines, and therefore they were
not repainted. Work had already been started to remove the bypass sections at the time of the
1 The Notice misidentified § 192.481(b) and (c) as “(a)” and “(b),” respectively.
2 Notice at 2.



3
OPS inspection. Respondent submitted contractor quotes, invoices and a photo of a bypass line
to support its position.
Section 192.481 requires that pipeline operators inspect each onshore pipeline that is exposed to
the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once every 3 calendar years, but
within intervals not exceeding 39 months. During the inspections, an operator must give
particular attention to certain pipeline features, such as pipe at soil-to-air interfaces, under
thermal insulation, under disbonded coatings, and at pipe supports. If atmospheric corrosion is
found during an inspection, the operator must provide protection against the corrosion.
Although the Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 192.481 by failing to “monitoring for
atmospheric corrosion,
” Respondent has submitted documentation demonstrating that the
company inspected the subject valve stations a couple months before OPS’s June 2008
inspection. The corrosion that had been observed during the OPS inspection, had already been
documented on Praxair’s patrol records dated April and May 2008 and the company had already
begun to remediate the corrosion at the time of the OPS inspection as demonstrated by contractor
invoices. In addition, the worst corrosion observed was on several bypass lines that had been
removed from service and Respondent had already begun to remove such bypass sections at the
time of the OPS inspection, as demonstrated by work quotes dated May 2008.
The evidence produced by OPS in the Pipeline Safety Violation Report, dated November 17,
2008, consists of Praxair’s written procedures for conducting atmospheric corrosion inspections
and for remediating corrosion, but the Violation Report provides no further evidence to
demonstrate either that Respondent failed to give particular attention to the pipeline features
specified in § 192.481(b) or that it failed to provide protection against any corrosion found, as
specified in § 192.481(c).
Accordingly, after considering all the evidence, I find that the record does not contain a
sufficient basis for this probable violation. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby withdraw Item 1.
As a consequence, the terms of the proposed compliance order associated with Item 1 are also
withdrawn.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service.
___________________________________ __________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 9021