{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420091015W","title":"EAGLE US 2 LLC — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2009-06-10","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.905(a), 192.921(a)(4).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420091015w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420091015w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420091015w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420091015W","body":"Warning Letter involving EAGLE US 2 LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.905(a),  192.921(a)(4). The case was opened on 2009-06-10 and is reported as closed as of 2009-06-10. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420091015W_Warning_06102009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420091015W/420091015W_Warning_06102009.pdf\n\n420091015W_Warning_06102009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420091015W/420091015W_Warning_06102009_text.pdf\n\n420091015W_Warning_06102009_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJune 10, 2009\nKevin Sullivan\nSenior V.P. Chemicals\nPPG Industries, Inc.\n440 College Park Drive\nMonroeville Pennsylvania, 15146\nCPF 4-2009-1015W\nDear Mr. Sullivan:\nOn August 27 - 31 and November 5 - 9, 2007, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of\n49 United States Code inspected PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) procedures and\nrecords for the Integrity Management Plan in Westlake, Louisiana.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable\nviolations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal\nRegulations. The items inspected and the probable violations are:\n1. §192.905(a) General. To determine which segments of an operator's\ntransmission pipeline system are covered by this subpart, an operator\nmust identify the high consequence areas. An operator must use method\n(1) or (2) from the definition in §192.903 to identify a high consequence\narea. An operator may apply one method for its entire pipeline system, or\nan operator may apply one method to individual portions of the pipeline\nsystem. An operator must describe in its integrity management program\nwhich method it is applying to each portion of the operator's pipeline\nsystem. The description must include the potential impact radius when\nutilized to establish a high consequence area. (See appendix E.I. for\nguidance on identifying high consequence areas.)\n\n\n\nA) At the time of the inspection, PPG’s December 2004 BAP differentiated\nClass 3 locations of its Chlorine lines versus non-class 3 locations. It is\nunclear:\n• Whether the entire length of chlorine lines were included within the\nBAP (6.822 miles versus 6.2 reported in the semi-annual reports).\n• How identified sites were included within the procedural steps for\nidentifying HCAs on these lines.\n• PPG should have determined initially in 2004 that the Bayer Plant area\nwas an identified site and should have added it to the BAP at that time.\nB) PPG did not apply new information available concerning factors for\nethylene; instead PPG applied a factor of .74 with the CFER equation in\ndetermining a PIR of 196+ feet for its 8” Orange ethylene gas pipeline.\nThe accepted factor to use is 1.04 for ethylene as identified in the Baker\nTTO-013 report that results in a PIR radius for ethylene of 271+ feet. PPG\nneeds to revise IMP plan for determining HCAs for its 8” ethylene pipeline,\nensure it identifies any additional HCAs or identified sites due to the\nrevised PIR, and revise its BAP to reflect any additional HCAs and HCA\nsegment footage for the ethylene pipeline.\nC) PPG personnel incorrectly applied method 2, potential impact circles, in\ndetermining the limits of its HCAs and were not applying the method in\naccordance with the wording in its procedure. PPG needs to revise its\nIMP plan and procedures to specifically indicate how PPG will determine\nthe limits of its HCAs and correct its listing of HCAs.\n2. §192.921(a)(4) Other technology. Other technology that an operator\ndemonstrates can provide an equivalent understanding of the condition of\nthe line pipe. An operator choosing this option must notify the Office of\nPipeline Safety (OPS) 180 days before conducting the assessment, in\naccordance with §192.949. An operator must also notify a State or local\npipeline safety authority when either a covered segment is located in a\nState where OPS has an interstate agent agreement, or an intrastate\ncovered segment is regulated by that State.\nAt the time of the inspection, PPG provided documentation of an ECDA and\nindicated it used Long Range Ultrasonic Testing (LRUT) as a complementary tool\nto DCVG, CIS, and CSAN for use on casings. This does not meet Subpart O\nrule requirements. The PHMSA inspection team explained that LRUT of casings\nresults in use of “other technology” requiring notification to PHMSA. PPG did not\nmeet the 180-day notification requirement. Such notifications must include\ntechnical justification of LRUT assessment capability.\nWith respect to items 1 & 2 above, PPG revised several Integrity Management\nPlan procedures including the number of HCA miles and its Baseline\nAssessment Plan. PPG utilized newly submitted procedures to verify their HCA\n\n\n\nmiles and updated their Baseline Assessment Plan. The inspection team\nreviewed the updates and verified that the procedures were in compliance.\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to\nexceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a\nmaximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of violations. We have reviewed\nthe circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case, and have\ndecided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment\nproceedings at this time. We advise you to correct the item(s) identified in this\nletter. Failure to do so will result in PPG Industries, Inc. being subject to\nadditional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence\nplease refer to CPF 4-2009-1015W. Be advised that all material you submit in\nresponse to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly available.\nIf you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original\ndocument you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you\nbelieve qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you\nbelieve the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5\nU.S.C. 552(b).\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration","truncated":false,"body_characters":6382}