{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420112001","title":"SEA ROBIN PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2011-03-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.605(a), 192.807(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420112001.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420112001.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420112001","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420112001","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SEA ROBIN PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.605(a),  192.807(b). The case was opened on 2011-03-21 and is reported as closed as of 2012-02-15. Proposed civil penalty: $19,000. Assessed civil penalty: $10,300. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420112001_Closure Letter_02152012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420112001/420112001_Closure%20Letter_02152012.pdf\n\n420112001_Closure Letter_02152012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420112001/420112001_Closure%20Letter_02152012_text.pdf\n\n420112001_Final Order_12292011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420112001/420112001_Final%20Order_12292011.pdf\n\n420112001_Final Order_1229201_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420112001/420112001_Final%20Order_1229201_text.pdf\n\n420112001_NOPV PCP PCO_03212011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420112001/420112001_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_03212011.pdf\n\n420112001_NOPV PCP PCO_03212011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420112001/420112001_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_03212011_text.pdf\n\n420112001_NOPV PCP PCO_03212011_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMarch 21, 2011\nMr. Eric Amundsen\nVice President of Technical Services\nSea Robin Pipeline Company\n5444 Westheimer Road\nHouston, TX 77056-5306\nCPF 4-2011-2001\nDear Mr. Amundsen:\nDuring September and December 2010, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected your\noffshore natural gas transmission pipeline system, Unit ID 1874 – Sea Robin Transmission in Erath,\nLA.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline\nSafety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable\nviolation(s) are:\n1. §192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of\nwritten procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for\nemergency response. For transmission lines, the manual must also include\nprocedures for handling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and\nupdated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least one each\ncalendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system\ncommence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\n\n\n\nSea Robin personnel failed to follow the established procedures when performing covered\ntask PLOQ713A ‘Commission and Maintain Stationary Gas Detection Systems’. During the\ninspection, PHMSA asked Sea Robin to perform this covered task as part of the inspection\nprocess.\nSea Robin uses Panhandle Energy’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and specifically\nin this instance Sea Robin utilized SOP H.18 ‘Stationary Gas and Fire Detection Systems’.\nSection 7.4 ‘Testing and Inspection of Gas Sensors’, step 3 states:\n“CALIBRATE every sensor and TEST each controller using a 50% Lower Explosive\nLimit (LEL) methane calibration gas source. VERIFY the following action:\n• Low alarm trip point - not more that 25% LEL\n• High alarm trip point - not more than 50% LEL\n• 0% (zero) with the LEL meter in free air\nAt the Erath Compressor Station they use an additional site specific procedure, ‘Calibrate\nGas Detectors’. In the procedure, steps 7.2 through 7.9 detail the process used to calibrate\na gas detection sensor. These steps are repeated to calibrate each gas detection sensor.\nStep 7.12 is for testing each gas detection sensor. Step 7.12 states:\n“Verify an LEL gas warning (GAS.WARN) at 20% LEL and LEL gas alarm\n(GAS.ALARM) at 40% LEL by noting the following in the control room.”\n7.12.1 The Horn sounds\n7.12.2 An indication is seen on the Network Monitor\n7.12.3 An alarm printout occurs on the Network Printer\n7.12.4 The red alarm light is illuminated on the Sensor Controller Card.\nDuring the performance of covered task PLOQ713A, Sea Robin personnel performed the\ncalibration steps, 7.2 through 7.9 for the gas detection sensor located over Compressor 1-\nUnit #2. The personnel failed to perform step 7.12 to verify that the gas detector low alarm\ntrip and high alarm trip were functioning properly. In response to PHMSA inquiry as to why\nnot all parts of the task were completed PHMSA inspectors were told that the complete\ntesting could not be performed because it would cause a station shut down. PHMSA\nidentified in the site specific procedure, ‘Calibrate Gas Detectors’ a note which states\n“Placing the Station safety systems in bypass mode will prevent a unit shutdown for the Gas\nDetection Warning Alarm signal (GAS.ALARM) caused by the testing procedure”.\nSea Robin Personnel did not follow the actions required in their SOP and site specific\nprocedures.\n2\n\n\n\n2. §192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of\nwritten procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for\nemergency response. For transmission lines, the manual must also include\nprocedures for handling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and\nupdated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least one each\ncalendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system\ncommence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nSea Robin personnel failed to follow their procedures for Conducting Atmospheric Corrosion\nInspection. Sea Robin failed to provide protection against atmospheric corrosion as required\nby this procedure.\nSea Robin uses Panhandle Energy’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) specifically Sea\nRobin utilized SOP D.44 “Atmospheric Corrosion Inspection.” Section 7.4 Reporting states\nresults of the inspection are to be documented:\n1. Document metal loss evaluations in the Pipe inspection Database\n2. Document coating evaluations and recommended actions in the Corrosion Database\n3. Document remedial action plan using Form 7T-60 Remedial Action report.\nPHMSA reviewed paperwork and noted the following:\nSouth Marsh 33 platform. Panhandle Energy “CD_Atm_V_SMI_06 Atmospheric Report” [J-\nSMI 33] blow down notes:\n5/28/08 moderate corrosion in flange area\n7/17/09 a case 6 having blisters at supports and 1in blowdown has several defects at\ntank.\n6/15/10 case 6 one inch cmv piping\nEast Cameron 195 platform. Panhandle Energy “CD_Atm_EC-WC_06 Atmospheric Report”\n[J-EC195] Riser 707 notes:\n8/15/09 Riser is a Case 6 with corrosion at supports and scale along riser\n8/9/10 Case 6, recoat riser\nEast Cameron 195 platform. Panhandle Energy “CD_Atm_EC-WC_06 Atmospheric Report”\n[J-EC195] Riser 701 notes:\n8/15/09 Riser is a Case 6 with corrosion at supports\n8/9/10 Case 6, recoat riser\nAppendix B of this SOP identifies the various classification of coating Inspection. Case 6\ncoating classification is described as:\n“Degradation of topcoat, but majority of primer and/or intermediate coat intact.\nIndications of pitting. Economic analysis indicates maintenance coating is cost\neffective.\n”\nThe action required for a Case 6 classification is: “Coating rehabilitation required. Remove\nand replace existing coating system in areas where coating degradation is severe. Apply\nmaintenance coating over intact portions of existing coating.”\n3\n\n\n\nDuring the inspection, observations were made of the piping and components at the\nlocations above. Each location displayed areas of deteriorated coating and extensive\ncorrosion. Sea Robin personnel did not follow the actions required in their SOP.\n3. 192.807 Recordkeeping.\n(b) Records supporting an individual’s current qualification shall be maintained while\nthe individual is performing the covered task. Records of prior qualification and\nrecords of individuals no longer performing covered tasks shall be retained for a\nperiod of five years.\nSea Robin failed to maintain current qualification records supporting the qualification of\n‘Contractor, OQ’ for the maintenance of mainline valves 700-44, 700-46, and 700-48.\nPHMSA reviewed the valve maintenance records. Task 7T0032E – Annual Valve\nMaintenance and Trouble Report (Emergency Valves) is designated as an OQ task. Work\nOrder No: 169209, Assembly No: 94039, Amarada Hess Plant, indicates that the annual\nmaintenance task for valves 700-44, 700-46, and 700-48 was partially done by “Contractor,\nOQ” on May 22, 2010. Sea Robin personnel stated they did not have the individual’s name\nor OQ records.\nSea Robin must maintain qualification records for individuals that perform or have performed\ncovered tasks on the pipeline system.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 for\neach violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related\nseries of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting\ndocumentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that you be\npreliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $19,000 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n2 $10,300\n3 $ 8,700\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 1 and 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Sea Robin\nPipeline Company. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a\npart of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nCompliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be advised\nthat all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly\navailable. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a\nsecond copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment4\n\n\n\nredacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this\nconstitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further\nnotice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2011-2001 and for each document you\nsubmit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n5\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Sea Robin Pipeline Company a Compliance Order\nincorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Sea Robin Pipeline\nCompany with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to the failure to follow the\nestablished procedures when performing covered task PLOQ713A ‘Commission and\nMaintain Stationary Gas Detection Systems,\n’ Sea Robin should review their\nprocedures and retrain and qualify those individuals responsible for the testing and\nmaintenance of the Stationary Gas Detection Systems to ensure the procedures will\nbe followed.\n2. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to the failure to follow SOP D.44\n“Atmospheric Corrosion Inspection,” Sea Robin must remediate the areas noted.\n3. Aforementioned to be accomplished within 30 days following receipt of the Final\nOrder.\n4. It is requested (not mandated) that Sea Robin Pipeline Company maintain\ndocumentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this\nCompliance Order and submit the total to R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region,\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these\ncosts be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision\nof plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n6\n\n420112001_Closure Letter_02152012_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nFebruary 15, 2012\nMr. Eric Amundsen\nVice President and Chief Asset Integrity Officer\nSea Robin Pipeline Company\n5444 Westheimer Road\nHouston, TX 77056-5306\nCPF 4-2011-2001\nDear Mr. Amundsen:\nOn December 29, 2011, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Sea Robin Pipeline Company a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order\nincluded a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the\ndocumentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined\nthat you have complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the matters\ninvolved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n\n420112001_Final Order_12292011.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nDEC 2 9 2011\nMr. Eric Amundsen\nVice President of Technical Services\nSea Robin Pipeline Company\n5444 Westheimer Road\nHouston, TX 77056-5306\nRe: CPF No. 4-2011-2001\nDear Mr. Amundsen:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $10,300, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Sea\nRobin Pipeline Company to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment\nterms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of\nthe compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed\neffective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\n~~~\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. R.M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nMr. Stephen M. Moore, Counsel, Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC.\nCERTIFIED MAIL~ RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [717910001642030577991\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTl\\1ENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\nSea Robin Pipeline Company,\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent.\n) ___________________________)\nCPF No. 4-2011-2001\nFINAL ORDER\nIn September and December 2010, 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 on-site pipeline safety inspections of the facilities and records of Sea Robin\nPipeline Company (Sea Robin or Respondent) in Erath, Louisiana. Sea Robin operates 377.2\nmiles of pipeline, 2 compressor stations, and 5 offshore platforms.\nAs a result of these inspections, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated March 21,2011, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.P.R.§ 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that Sea Robin committed violations of 49 C.P.R. Part 192 and\nassessing a civil penalty of $19,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed\nordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nSea Robin responded to the Notice by letter dated April 22, 2011 (Response), contesting two of\nthe allegations and requesting a hearing. An informal hearing was held on August 23, 2011, in\nHouston, Texas with an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. At the\nhearing, Sea Robin was represented by counsel. After the hearing, Respondent provided a\ntranscript of the proceeding, a Post-Hearing Statement (Brief), and additional exhibits for the\nrecord, by letter dated September 23, 2011. 1\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\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. § 192.605, which states in\nrelevant part:\n1 Some documents were forwarded electronically.\n\n\n\n2\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline,\na manual of written procedures for conducting operations and\nmaintenance activities and for emergency response. For\ntransmission lines, the manual must also include procedures for\nhandling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and\nupdated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but\nat least once each calendar year. This manual must be prepared\nbefore operations of a pipeline system commence. Appropriate\nparts of the manual must be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its\nmanual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for\nemergency response. Specifically, the Notice alleged that a PHMSA inspector requested that\nSea Robin personnel perform a covered task, \"Commission and Maintain Stationary Gas\nDetection Systems,\" as part of the inspection process. Sea Robin personnel failed to verify that\nthe gas detector low and high alarm trips were properly functioning. When questioned, company\npersonnel mistakenly stated that performance of Step 3 of this covered task would result in a\nstation shut down. 2 Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its manual of written procedures when performing\nmaintenance of the gas detection system.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline,\na manual of written procedures for conducting operations and\nmaintenance activities and for emergency response. For\ntransmission lines, the manual must also include procedures for\nhandling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and\nupdated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but\nat least once each calendar year. This manual must be prepared\nbefore operations of a pipeline system commence. Appropriate\nparts of the manual must be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its\nStandard Operating Procedures (SOP) for addressing atmospheric corrosion on certain offshore\nplatforms. SOP D.44 \"Atmospheric Corrosion Inspection,\" Section 7.4 Reporting requires\ndocumentation of corrosion and its Appendix B classifies and provides the action item for each\n2 A subsequent review of the maintenance records showed this is not the case ... \" Pipeline Safety Violation Report\n(Violation Report), (March 22, 20 II) (on file with PHMSA) at 3-4.\n\n\n\n3\ninstance of noted corrosion. From 2008 through 2010, OPS asserted that Sea Robin personnel\nrepeatedly noted \"Case 6 classifications\" of corrosion on the South Marsh 33 and East Cameron\n195 platforms. According to Appendix B, coating rehabilitation is required for Case 6\nclassifications. OPS argued in the Notice that Sea Robin failed to follow its SOP, which requires\nremediation of Case 6 classifications prior to the next inspection cycle.\nAt the hearing, the Respondent presented evidence that it followed its SOP for addressing\natmospheric corrosion on the offshore platforms cited in the Notice. Sea Robin argued that\nneither its operating procedures nor any regulation require remediation of corrosion on offshore\nplatforms prior to the next scheduled inspection. According to the Respondent, while Sea Robin\nassigned a level63 to the instances of corrosion cited in the Notice, such corrosion is not\nindicative of an integrity threat to the pipeline and therefore remediation was properly scheduled,\nper its SOP. The Respondent also argued that corrosion is a constant concern, given the\ngeographic location and attendant weather conditions of offshore platforms in this area. Sea\nRobin reasoned that, given these circumstances, some corrosion is expected and not necessarily\nindicative of an integrity threat requiring repair according to a specific timetable. Since it\nadhered to the required yearly inspection intervals and determined that no immediate repair\ncondition was presented, the Respondent argued that it acted in accordance with its SOP and\ntherefore did not violate either its procedures or § 192.605( a).\nSea Robin uses Panhandle Energy's SOP Volume D - Corrosion (SOP), which provides the\nprocedure for an \"Atmospheric Corrosion Inspection.\" Several parts of this procedure are\ninstructive and reproduced below.\nSection 7.3 \"Evaluation of Inspection Results\" states, in relevant part:\nStep Activity\n1 RANK coating condition as follows.\n• Good (0-5% ): Coating intact with no visible deterioration or damage\n• Fair (6-20%): Coating essentially intact, but with some visible deterioration\n• Poor (21-99% ): Extensive visible deterioration of coating\n• Bare (100%): No coating present.\n2 DETERMINE whether the service life of the existing coating system can be extended through\nspot repair or maintenance painting.\n3 DEVELOP recommendations for coating rehabilitation using the guidelines listed in Appendix B\nClassification of Coating Inspections.\n4 DETERMINE whether the existing coating system will provide adequate protection to limit\ncorrosion activity to a uniform light surface oxide before the next Compliance Inspection.\nNOTE:\n1. 2. With the exception of soil/air interfaces and offshore risers, the presence of uniform light surface\noxides should not affect the safe operation of the pipeline system.\nAny corrosion found on an offshore riser or at a soil/air interface requires remedial action.\n3 Panhandle Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), Appendix B, \"Classification of Coating Inspection\" rates\ncorrosion from Case l (least) to Case 7 (most).\n\n\n\n4\nA d' B Cl 'f t' fC I oatmg nspectmn\nlppen IX aSSl lCa lOll 0\nCASE DESCRIPTION ACTION\nCase 1 Coating system intact ... No action required.\nCase4 Degradation of topcoat, but majority of primer and/or No action required. Existing coating\nintermediate coat intact. No indications of pitting. system must be removed prior to\nEconomic analysis indicates maintenance coating is not recoating.\ncost effective. Experience in Area indicates that\nremaining coating and/or surface oxide will prevent\npitting until next inspection period.\nCase 6 Degradation of topcoat, but majority of primer and/or Coating rehabilitation required.\nimmediate coat intact. Indication of pitting. Economic Remove and replace existing coating\nanalysis indicates maintenance coating is cost effective. system in areas where coating\ndegradation is severe. Apply\nmaintenance coating over intact\nportions of existing coating.\nSea Robin argues that its atmospheric corrosion procedures provide the company with the\nflexibility to defer a Case 6 classification until an integrity threat to the pipeline is identified or\nthe corrosion is such that the company is not adequately maintaining the pipeline.4\nHowever, the plain language of this SOP, read in its entirety, indicates otherwise. Section 7.3,\nStep 4, specifically directs the inspector to determine whether the coating system will provide\nsufficient protection until the next inspection cycle. Furthermore, Appendix B provides a\nstraightforward classification system that progresses from Case 1 to Case 7. For Case 1 through\nCase 4 scenarios, \"No action [is] required.\" In the description of Case 4, where no action is\nrequired, the inspector is required to find that the \"remaining coating and/or surface oxide will\nprevent pitting until [the] next inspection period.\" In other words, for situations that are\nclassified as Case 1 - 4, the inspector must find the coating either \"will perform adequately until\n[the] next inspection period [or] will prevent pitting until [the] next inspection period. \"5\nNotably, Case 6 is absent of any such contemplation of the next inspection period. I find that\nthis is because \"Appendix B: Classification of Coating Inspection,\" read in conjunction with\nSOP \"VolumeD- Corrosion- Atmospheric Corrosion Inspection\" requires that rehabilitation be\naddressed prior to the next inspection period.\nGiven Sea Robin's position that its SOP does not require remediation prior to the next inspection\ncycle, the Respondent also questioned in its post-hearing submission if any \"authority [exists] for\nthe position ... that the remediation at issue in Item 2 was required to be completed within an\ninspection interval.\" In a prior case, Panhandle, whose SOP is used by Sea Robin and is at issue\nin this case, acknowledged that remediation of noted action items should occur before the next\n4 \"HEARING OFFICER: So is it your position that you could- Say we have the same situation. You say that it's a\nCase 6. As long- in your view, as long as you monitor the situation to the extent that you're sure that the integrity\nof the system has not been called into question, you could delay [these] remedial action as far into the future as you\ndeem appropriate? MR. RAU: And I hear where you're going and I would say that ... there's another requirement\nin the code that says we must maintain the coating system ... So I think the issue is: Is more than a year appropriate\nor not? ... We disagree with that. We think that a year or less is not appropriate.\"\n5 SOP, Appendix B.\n\n\n\n5\ninspection cycle. In an August 6, 20086 letter, Panhandle Energy readily admitted that \"PHMSA\nhas issued guidance on maximum intervals for corrosion control system remediation. That\nguidance states that remediation should be initiated prior to the next inspection period.\" 7 The\nnext inspection period is, and has always been, the target for the remediation of issues noted\nduring a previous inspection.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to remediate corrosion, according to its SOP.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.807, which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.807 Recordkeeping.\nEach operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance with\nthis subpart.\n(a) ...\n(b) Records supporting an individual's current qualification shall be\nmaintained while the individual is performing the covered task.\nRecords of prior qualification and records of individuals no longer\nperforming covered tasks shall be retained for a period of five\nyears.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.807(b) by failing to maintain\ncurrent qualification records for covered task 7T0032E- Annual Valve Maintenance and\nTrouble Report (Emergency Valves). During the inspection, Sea Robin could not produce the\nOQ records for \"Contractor OQ,\" who partially performed the annual maintenance task for three\nvalves on May 22, 2010.\nAt the hearing, the Respondent stated that a Sea Robin employee, Ronald Eversberg, performed\nmaintenance of the mainline valves cited in the Notice for failure to maintain OQ records for an\nindividual performing a covered task. PHMSA asserted that Sea Robin's maintenance records\nindicated that the annual maintenance task for certain valves was partially completed by\n\"Contractor OQ.\"\n6 In the Matter of Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. (Panhandle Pipeline), CPF 3-2008-1002, (Jun. 17, 20 11)\n(available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).\n7 While not dispositive of the issue presented in this case, a number of final orders reaffirm that remediation should\noccur prior to the beginning of the next inspection cycle. \"Adverse conditions should be corrected as soon as\npossible, and no later than the next inspection cycle.\" In the Matter of Cenex, Inc. ( Cenex), C.P.F. No. 5-1998-4514\n(Oct. 20, 1998) (available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement). \"The failure to take appropriate action to\ncorrect the low readings in time for the next inspection cycle reflects a serious lapse in Respondent's ability to react\nappropriately to matters affecting the safe operation of its pipeline system.\" In the Matter of Natural Gas Pipeline\nCompany of America (Natural Gas Pipeline), C.P.F. 2-1997-3103 (Aug. 18, 1997) (available at\nwww. phmsa.dot. go v /pipeline/enforcement).\n\n\n\n6\nSea Robin stated that, due to administrative error, \"Contractor OQ\" was inserted in the place of\nRonald Eversberg, who witnessed the maintenance of the valves in question.8 At the hearing,\nRespondent provided an updated form showing that Ronald Eversberg witnessed the\nmaintenance of these valves.9 Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I order\nthat Item 3 be withdrawn. .\nASSESS:MENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent's culpability; the history of Respondent's prior offenses; the Respondent's\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,300 for the violation of§ 192.605(a). I withdrew the\nallegation of violation for Item 3; therefore, no civil penalty is appropriate.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,300 for Respondent's violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), for failing to prepare and follow its SOP for atmospheric corrosion\ninspections. The Respondent argued that the penalty should be withdrawn due to the fact that it\ndid not violate its SOP by failing to remediate atmospheric corrosion prior to the next inspection\ncycle. Given that I rejected this argument, there do not appear to be any factors that favor\nmitigation of the proposed penalty for this item.\nThe Respondent did not make a good-faith effort to comply with the regulation. Furthermore,\nalthough Respondent's omission did not result in any damage to the pipeline system or the\nenvironment, Respondent's failure to promptly remediate could have undermined pipeline safety.\nRespondent's ability to pay is not in question.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $10,300 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\n8 \"But as far as the maintenance of the valve itself, outside of operation, we can say that Ron [Eversberg] performed\nall of those activities. Transcript, 54.\n9 Compliance Work Order, l-3.\n\n\n\n7\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $10,300 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of\n49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following\nactions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of§ 192.605 (Item 1), Respondent must review its\nprocedures and re-train and re-qualify those individuals responsible for the testing\nand maintenance of the Stationary Gas Detection Systems to ensure the\nprocedures will be followed within 30 days following receipt of this Final Order.\n2. With respect to the violation of§ 192.605 (Item 2), Respondent must remediate\nthe areas noted on the South Marsh 33 and East Cameron 195 platforms, as\nindicated on the relevant Atmospheric Reports, within 30 days following receipt\nof this Final Order.\n3. Proof of compliance must be provided to the Regional Director, Southwest\nRegion, within 15 days of the completion of Items 1 and 2.\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 and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to 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. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2\"d Floor, Washington, DC\n\n\n\n8\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all\nother terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n~~ DEC2920D\nJeffrey D:-wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n420112001_Final Order_1229201_text.pdf\n\nDEC 29 2011\nMr. Eric Amundsen\nVice President of Technical Services\nSea Robin Pipeline Company\n5444 Westheimer Road\nHouston, TX 77056-5306\nRe: CPF No. 4-2011-2001\nDear Mr. Amundsen:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $10,300, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Sea\nRobin Pipeline Company to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment\nterms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of\nthe compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed\neffective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided 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, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nMr. Stephen M. Moore, Counsel, Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC.\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [71791000164203057799]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nSea Robin Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 4-2011-2001\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nIn September and December 2010, 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 on-site pipeline safety inspections of the facilities and records of Sea Robin\nPipeline Company (Sea Robin or Respondent) in Erath, Louisiana. Sea Robin operates 377.2\nmiles of pipeline, 2 compressor stations, and 5 offshore platforms.\nAs a result of these inspections, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated March 21, 2011, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that Sea Robin committed violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and\nassessing a civil penalty of $19,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed\nordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nSea Robin responded to the Notice by letter dated April 22, 2011 (Response), contesting two of\nthe allegations and requesting a hearing. An informal hearing was held on August 23, 2011, in\nHouston, Texas with an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. At the\nhearing, Sea Robin was represented by counsel. After the hearing, Respondent provided a\ntranscript of the proceeding, a Post-Hearing Statement (Brief), and additional exhibits for the\nrecord, by letter dated September 23, 2011.\n1\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\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. § 192.605, which states in\nrelevant part:\n1 Some documents were forwarded electronically.\n\n\n\n2\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline,\na manual of written procedures for conducting operations and\nmaintenance activities and for emergency response. For\ntransmission lines, the manual must also include procedures for\nhandling abnormal operations. This manual must be revie","truncated":true,"body_characters":58728}