{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420111002W","title":"EAGLE US 2 LLC — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2011-01-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.803(e).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420111002w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420111002w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420111002w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420111002W","body":"Warning Letter involving EAGLE US 2 LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.803(e). The case was opened on 2011-01-28 and is reported as closed as of 2011-01-28. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420111002W_Operator Response to Warning Letter_03292011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420111002W/420111002W_Operator%20Response%20to%20Warning%20Letter_03292011.pdf\n\n420111002W_Warning_01282011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420111002W/420111002W_Warning_01282011.pdf\n\n420111002W_Warning_01282011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420111002W/420111002W_Warning_01282011_text.pdf\n\n420111002W_Warning_01282011_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJanuary 28, 2011\nMr. Michael McGarry\nSenior Vice President\nPPG Industries, Inc.\n440 College Park Drive\nMonroeville, PA 15146\nCPF 4-2011-1002W\nDear Mr. McGarry:\nOn April 26-30, 2010, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected your PPG\nIndustries, Inc.’s LA-TX Ethylene Pipeline in Lake Charles, LA.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed a probable violation of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the\nprobable violation is:\n1. §192.803\nAbnormal operating condition means a condition identified by the operator that\nmay indicate a malfunction of a component or deviation from normal operations\nthat may:\n(a) Indicate a condition exceeding design limits; or\n(b) Result in a hazard(s) to persons, property, or the environment.\n\n\n\nEvaluation means a process, established and documented by the operator, to\ndetermine an individual’s ability to perform a covered task by any of the following:\n(a) Written examination;\n(b) Oral examination;\n(c) Work performance history review;\n(d) Observation during:\n(1) Performance on the job,\n(2) On the job training, or\n(3) Simulations; or\n(e) Other forms of assessment.\nQualified means that an individual has been evaluated and can:\n(a) Perform assigned covered tasks; and\n(b) Recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions.\nOperator personnel were unable to readily identify Abnormal Operating procedures associate\nwith the tasks they were performing. Operator personnel did not perform a covered task as\nallowed/specified in the company’s procedures.\nDuring the inspection, an individual was asked to perform a covered task (Operate a Mainline\nValve) which the operator’s “qualified” individual performed according to procedure. When\nasked by this inspector, “what were some of the Abnormal Operating Conditions?” The\nindividual was unable to do so without leading from the inspector. A senior technician was also\npresent at the time and acknowledged the deficiency in response by the technician performing\nthe task concerning the recognition of AOCs associated with the task.\nA second individual was then asked to perform a different qualified task (Inspect Rectifier). The\nindividual incorrectly performed the task by not performing the task as denoted in the operator’s\nwritten procedures. When the technician was asked if his actions were done according to the\noperator’s written procedures, he responded in the affirmative. The technician was asked to\nconfirm his understanding of the procedure and responded that the actions he had performed was\nan “alternative” method, as “performed in the plant.” The written procedures did not contain any\n“alternative” methods of the type performed or witnessed to obtain a rectifier reading. The\naforementioned senior technician accompanying the inspection also witnessed the performance\nof covered tasked (rectifier reading) by the technician commented afterwards that the task had\nnot been performed per PPG’s written procedure and acknowledged the deficiency and\ninspector’s concerns.\nBoth individuals observed performing the covered tasks either insufficiently or incorrectly\nperformed them. The personnel selected to perform the covered tasks were experienced\n2\n\n\n\noperators. PPG was allowed ample notice that the inspection was to be performed and what the\ninspection would consist of. PPG was told by the inspector that any reference materials,\nmanuals, etc. were permissible to the technicians in order to perform the selected covered tasks.\nNone of the technicians chose to utilize any of these items in performing their tasks.\nIn both cases, PPG’s personnel failed to demonstrate properly executing the covered task (per the\ncompany’s written procedure) or were unable to readily identify the Abnormal Operating\nConditions associate with the covered tasks.\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000\nfor each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. We have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents\ninvolved in this case, and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty\nassessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to correct the item(s) identified in this letter.\nFailure to do so will result in PPG Industries, Inc. being subject to additional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer to\nCPF 4-2011-1002W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement\naction is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your\nresponsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the\ncomplete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions\nyou believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe\nthe redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\n3","truncated":false,"body_characters":6130}