{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420121015","title":"TEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-07-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.475(b), 192.605(a), 192.613, 192.705(b), 192.709(c), 192.739(a), 192.743(a), 192.745(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420121015.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420121015.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420121015","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420121015","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.475(b),  192.605(a),  192.613,  192.705(b),  192.709(c),  192.739(a),  192.743(a),  192.745(a). The case was opened on 2012-07-11 and is reported as closed as of 2013-04-16. Proposed civil penalty: $162,900. Assessed civil penalty: $162,900. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420121015_Closure_04162013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121015/420121015_Closure_04162013.pdf\n\n420121015_Closure_04162013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121015/420121015_Closure_04162013_text.pdf\n\n420121015_Final Order_12212012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121015/420121015_Final%20Order_12212012.pdf\n\n420121015_Final Order_12212012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121015/420121015_Final%20Order_12212012_text.pdf\n\n420121015_NOPV PCP PCO_07112012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121015/420121015_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_07112012.pdf\n\n420121015_NOPV PCP PCO_07112012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121015/420121015_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_07112012_text.pdf\n\n420121015_Operator Response to Notice_08072012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121015/420121015_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_08072012.pdf\n\n420121015_Closure_04162013_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nApril 16, 2013\nMr. David Goodwin\nVice President, Technical Services\nTexas Gas Transmission, LLC\n3800 Frederica Street\nP.O. Box 20008\nOwensboro, KY 42304-0008\nCPF 4-2012-1015\nDear Mr. Goodwin:\nOn December 21, 2012, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Texas Gas Transmission, LLC 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 on August 7,\n2012, it has been determined that 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\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nR.M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n420121015_Final Order_12212012_text.pdf\n\nDECEMBER 21, 2012\nMr. Rolf A. Gafvert\nPresident\nTexas Gas Transmission, LLC\n3800 Frederica Street\nOwensboro, KY 42301\nRe: CPF No. 4-2012-1015\nDear Mr. Gafvert:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $162,900, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nTexas Gas Transmission, LLC, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. This is to\nacknowledge receipt of payment of the full penalty amount, by wire transfer dated\nAugust 7, 2012. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as determined\nby the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final\nOrder by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided\nunder 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. David Goodwin, Vice President, Technical Services, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC,\n3800 Frederica Street, Owensboro, KY, 42301\nMr. Rodrick M. Seeley, Southwest Region Director, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\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)\nTexas Gas Transmission, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2012-1015\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween May 2 and September 29, 2011, 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 an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Texas Gas\nTransmission, LLC (TXGT), in Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana. TXGT, a subsidiary of\nBoardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, operates approximately 6,100 miles of natural gas pipelines\nfrom the Gulf of Mexico to the Midwest and Northeast.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated July 11, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to\n§ 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that TXGT had\nviolated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.613, 192.475, 192.605, 192.705, 192.739, 192.709, and 192.745 and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $162,900 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated August 7, 2012 (Response). The company\ndid not contest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $162,900, as\nprovided in 49 C.F.R. § 190.227. Payment of the penalty serves to close the case with prejudice\nto Respondent.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, TXGT did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part\n192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.613, which states:\n1 http://www.txgt.com/AboutUsTXGT.aspx (last accessed on November 27, 2012).\n\n\n\n2\n§ 192.613 Continuing surveillance.\n(a) Each operator shall have a procedure for continuing surveillance\nof its facilities to determine and take appropriate action concerning\nchanges in class location, failures, leakage history, corrosion, substantial\nchanges in cathodic protection requirements, and other unusual operating\nand maintenance conditions.\n(b) If a segment of pipeline is determined to be in unsatisfactory\ncondition but no immediate hazard exists, the operator shall initiate a\nprogram to recondition or phase out the segment involved, or, if the\nsegment cannot be reconditioned or phased out, reduce the maximum\nallowable operating pressure in accordance with § 192.619(a) and (b).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.613 by failing to have and\nimplement a procedure for continuing surveillance of its facilities to determine and take\nappropriate action concerning unusual operating and maintenance conditions. Specifically, it\nalleged that TXGT failed to initiate a program to take appropriate action following a hydrotest\nthat overstressed two ANSI 150 WNRF flanges for Project #1339. According to the Notice,\nTXGT tested the two flanges (which had been rated to 275 psig) to 530 pounds, or 105 pounds\nabove the allowable test pressure of 425 psig. The company failed, however, to take appropriate\nfollow-up action to deal with the overstressed pipe.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review\nof all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.613 by failing to\nhave and implement a procedure for continuing surveillance of its facilities to determine\nand take appropriate action concerning unusual operating and maintenance conditions.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.475(b), which states:\n§ 192.475 Internal corrosion control: General.\n(a) . . .\n(b) Whenever any pipe is removed from a pipeline for any reason, the\ninternal surface must be inspected for evidence of corrosion. If internal\ncorrosion is found—\n(1) The adjacent pipe must be investigated to determine the extent of\ninternal corrosion;\n(2) Replacement must be made to the extent required by the\napplicable paragraphs of §§ 192.485, 192.487, or 192.489; and\n(3) Steps must be taken to minimize the internal corrosion.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.475(b) by failing to inspect the\ninternal surface of pipe for evidence of corrosion when the pipe has been removed from the\npipeline for any reason. Specifically, the Notice alleged that TXGT failed to perform such\ninspections on 13 occasions in the areas of Bastrop-Guthrie, Pineville-Columbia, and Eunice-\nWoodlawn when pipe sections were replaced or valves installed.\nTXGT did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.475(b) by failing to inspect the internal\nsurface of pipe for evidence of corrosion when the pipe has been removed from the pipeline for\n\n\n\n3\nany reason.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), which states:\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline,\na manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance\nactivities and for emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual\nmust also include procedures for handling abnormal operations. This\nmanual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. This manual\nmust be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence.\nAppropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its own\nwritten procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that TXGT failed to follow its own procedures in two situations:\n1. TXGT personnel failed to remediate external corrosion that the company had graded as\n“P4” within the 180-day time period required under TXGT’s O&M Corrosion Control\nProcedure OM.20.13.01.08, Atmospheric and Offshore Splash Zone Corrosion\nInspections, section 5, Remedial Actions, 5.1.1 .\n2\n2. TXGT personnel failed to calibrate 12 gas detector devices to within the required\noperating range of 0% Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) to 50% LEL at the Sharon\nCompressor Station during calendar years 2010 and 2011, in accordance with TXGT’s\nElectrical and Automation Policy OM.30.03.00.05 Gas Detection, Policy section 1.3.1,\nand with Work Instruction, WI-01085 Testing & Maintaining Gas Detection\nAlarm/Shutdown Systems.\n3\n2 O&M Corrosion Control Procedure OM.20.13.01.08, Atmospheric and Offshore Splash Zone Corrosion\nInspections, section 5, Remedial Actions, 5.1.1 states: “After inspection, piping, flanges, and straps and supports\nwith a corrosion condition of 4 require remediation within 180 days.” On January 25, 2008, during an inspection of\nthe 2460 Deep Saline facility located in the Morgan City/Offshore area, TXGT graded the corrosion as “P4F3S2.”\nA subsequent inspection on May 21, 2008, resulted in a grading of the site as “P4F4S4.” The company completed\nremediation on December 5, 2008, which exceeded the 180 days required under TXGT’s own procedure.\n3 Electrical and Automation Policy OM.30.03.00.05 Gas Detection, Policy section 1.3.1, states “All gas detection\ndevices will be calibrated at least once each calendar year not to exceed 15 months, except where shorter intervals\nare required by the manufacturer.” The TXGT Work Instruction, WI-01085 Testing & Maintaining Gas Detection\nAlarm/Shutdown Systems, step 4.3 states: “Calibrate all sensors per manufacturer’s instruction and check at:\n• Alarm shall be set at 20% LEL\n• Shutdown shall be set at 40% LEL\n• Calibration gas level at 50% LEL.”\nDuring the annual calibration testing for 2010 at the Sharon Compressor Station, TXGT personnel failed to calibrate\nthe upper limit of eight gas detectors to the required limit of 50% LEL and for 2011 failed to calibrate the upper\nlimit of four detectors to the 50% LEL limit.\n\n\n\n4\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its\nown written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b), which states:\n§ 192.705 Transmission lines: Patrolling.\n(a) . . .\n(b) The frequency of patrols is determined by the size of the line, the\noperating pressures, the class location, terrain, weather, and other relevant\nfactors, but intervals between patrols may not be longer than prescribed in\nthe following table:\nMaximum interval between patrols\nClass\nlocation of\nline\nAt highway and railroad\ncrossings At all other places\n1, 2………\n7½ months; but at least twice each\ncalendar year.\n15 months; but at least once each\ncalendar year.\n3………… 4½ months; but at least four times\neach calendar year.\n7½ months; but at least twice each\ncalendar year.\n4………… 4½ months; but at least four times\neach calendar year.\n4½ months; but at least four times\neach calendar year.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b) by failing to meet the\nrequired patrolling intervals for Class 1 and 2 locations on numerous inspections during 2007.4\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that TXGT exceeded the required patrolling interval of at least\ntwice each calendar year but at intervals of not more than 7½ months on 41 separate occasions in\nthe Morgan City area.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b) by failing to meet the\nrequired patrolling intervals for Class 1 and 2 locations on numerous inspections during 2007.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a), which states:\n4 Section 49 C.F.R. § 192.5 defines Class 1 locations generally as (i) an offshore area; or (ii) any class location unit\nthat has 10 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy. Class 2 locations generally consist of “any class\nlocation unit that has more than 10 but fewer than 46 buildings intended for human occupancy.”\n\n\n\n5\n§ 192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and\ntesting.\n(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs),\nand pressure regulating station and its equipment must be subjected at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to\ninspections and tests to determine that it is\n(1) In good mechanical condition;\n(2) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of\noperation for the service in which it is employed;\n(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, set to control\nor relieve at the correct pressure consistent with the pressure limits of\n§ 192.201(a); and\n(4) Properly installed and protected from dirt, liquids, or other\nconditions that might prevent proper operation.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a) by failing to perform annual\nregulator/relief valve inspections to determine that they were in good mechanical condition and\nadequate to meet other performance standards. Specifically, the Notice alleged that TXGT failed\nto perform the inspections for Avoca Island #1 Relief Valve 9488 in 2007 and Old Camp Pass\n9012 in 2008 and 2009.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a) by failing to perform\nannual regulator/relief valve inspections to determine that they were in good mechanical\ncondition and adequate to meet other performance standards.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c), which states:\n§ 192.709 Transmission lines: Record keeping.\nEach operator shall maintain the following records for transmission\nlines for the periods specified:\n(a) . . .\n(c) A record of each patrol, survey, inspection, and test required by\nsubparts L and M of this part must be retained for at least 5 years or until\nthe next patrol, survey, inspection, or test is completed, whichever is\nlonger.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c) by failing to maintain a\nrecord of each patrol, survey, inspection, and test required by subparts L and M of Part 192 for at\nleast five years or until the next patrol, survey, inspection or test is completed, whichever is\nlonger.5\n5 The Notice alleged that TXGT did not maintain the annual inspection and testing data records for the following\nfacilities and years:\n• A730-G-16 Avoca Island #1 Relief Valve 9488 for calendar year 2007;\n• B705-G-30 REL Blk 20 Burlington 9552 for calendar year 2008;\n• C234-G-6 REG/FCPO Old Camp Pass 9012 for calendar years 2008 and 2009;\n• L420-G-29 REL South Lake Pagie 2198 for calendar years 2008 and 2009; and\n• L440-G-27 REL Lake Pagie for calendar year 2008.\n\n\n\n6\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c) by failing to maintain a\nrecord of each patrol, survey, inspection, and test required by subparts L and M of Part 192 for at\nleast five years or until the next patrol, survey, inspection or test is completed, whichever is\nlonger.\nItem 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a), which states:\n§ 192.745 Valve maintenance: Transmission lines.\n(a) Each transmission line valve that might be required during any\nemergency must be inspected and partially operated at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a) by failing to inspect and\npartially operate each transmission line valve that might be required during any emergency at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. Specifically, TXGT\npersonnel maintained 229 valves in 2006, from June through December. However in 2007,\nTXGT maintained only 128 of these same 229 valves. The remaining 101 valves were not\nmaintained in the 2007 calendar year.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a) by failing to inspect and\npartially operate each transmission line valve that might be required during any emergency at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT 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 $1,000,000 for any related\nseries of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and\n49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and\ngravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of\nRespondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s ability to\npay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business;\nand the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations.\nIn addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction\nbecause of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice\nproposed a total civil penalty of $162,900 for the violations cited above.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $25,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.475(b), by failing to inspect the internal surface of pipe for evidence of\ncorrosion when the pipe has been removed from the pipeline for any reason. The record shows\nthat TXGT did not perform the required inspections on 13 different occasions during 2007-2011.\n\n\n\n7\nTXGT paid the proposed penalty for the alleged violation, which serves to close the case with\nprejudice. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I\nassess Respondent a civil penalty of $25,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.475(b).\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $35,600 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), for failing to follow its own written procedures for conducting\noperations and maintenance activities. As discussed above, I found that TXGT failed to follow\ncompany procedures for remediating external corrosion and for calibrating certain gas detectors.\nTXGT paid the proposed penalty for the alleged violation, which serves to close the case with\nprejudice. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I\nassess Respondent a civil penalty of $35,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a).\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $29,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b), for failing to meet the required patrolling intervals for Class 1 and 2\nlocations on numerous occasions during 2007. As discussed above, I found that during 2007,\nTXGT exceeded the required patrolling interval on 41 separate occasions in the Morgan City\narea. TXGT paid the proposed penalty for the alleged violation, which serves to close the case\nwith prejudice. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria,\nI assess Respondent a civil penalty of $29,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b).\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $28,100 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a), for failing to perform annual relief valve inspections. As discussed\nabove, I found that TXGT failed to perform annual regulator/relief valve inspections to\ndetermine that they were in good mechanical condition and adequate to meet other performance\nstandards. TXGT paid the proposed penalty for the alleged violation, which serves to close the\ncase with prejudice. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $28,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a).\nItem 6: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $20,200 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.709, for failing to maintain a record of each patrol, survey, inspection, and test\nrequired by subparts L and M of Part 192 for at least five years or until the next patrol, survey,\ninspection or test is completed, whichever is longer. As discussed above, I found that TXGT\nfailed to maintain the proper documentation that should be utilized in its integrity management\nprogram. TXGT paid the proposed penalty for the alleged violation, which serves to close the\ncase with prejudice. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $20,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.709.\nItem 8: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $25,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a), for failing to inspect and partially operate each transmission line valve\nthat might be required during any emergency at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least\nonce each calendar year. As discussed above, I found that TXGT failed to perform proper\nannual inspections for 101 transmission line valves during 2007. TXGT paid the proposed\npenalty for the alleged violation, which serves to close the case with prejudice. Accordingly,\nhaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil\npenalty of $25,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $162,900.\n\n\n\n8\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.613. 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 § 192.613 (Item 1), Respondent must provide\nPHMSA with justification for testing the two flanges to 530 psig, or 105 psig above\nthe allowable test pressure. The justification should establish that the structural\nintegrity of the flanges has not been damaged. Otherwise, TXGT must replace the\ntwo flanges. This item of the compliance order must be completed within 45 days\nafter receipt of the Final Order.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 192.613 (Item 1), Respondent is requested to\nmaintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling\nthis Compliance Order and submit the total to R.M. Seeley, Director, Southwest\nRegion, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that\nthese costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revisions of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and 2) total cost\nassociated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\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.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 7, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning\nitem. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s failure to conduct capacity\nreviews for 31 relief devices in a timely manner. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat TXGT exceeded the capacity review timelines for 31 relief devices by one\nmonth between March 6, 2007, and July 8, 2008 and the capacity review for the\nrelief device L420-G-29-REL at South Lake Pagie 2198 during the 2008 calendar\nyear.\nIf OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject\nto future enforcement action.\n\n\n\n9\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n420121015_NOPV PCP PCO_07112012_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJuly 11, 2012\nBrian Cody, Senior VP Chief Operations\nTexas Gas Transmission LLC\n9 Greenway Plaza\nSuite 2800\nHouston, TX 77046\nCPF 4-2012-1015\nDear Mr. Brian Cody:\nOn multiple occasions between May 2 and September 29, 2011, a representative of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United\nStates Code was onsite and inspected your natural gas transmission pipeline system assets\nlocated in the states of Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the\nprobable violations are:\n1. §192.613 Continuing Surveillance\n(a) Each operator shall have a procedure for continuing surveillance of its facilities to\ndetermine and take appropriate action concerning changes in class location,\nfailures, leakage history, corrosion, substantial changes in cathodic protection\nrequirements, and other unusual operating and maintenance conditions.\n\n\n\n(b) If a segment of pipeline is determined to be in unsatisfactory condition but no\nimmediate hazard exists, the operator shall initiate a program to recondition or phase\nout the segment involved, or, if the segment cannot be reconditioned or phased out,\nreduce the maximum allowable operating pressure in accordance with §192.619 (a) and\n(b).\nTexas Gas Transmission (TXGT) failed to implement a continuing surveillance program to\ndetect and take appropriate action following a hydrotest that overstressed the two ANSI\n150 WNRF flanges for Project #1339. During the review of Project #1339 - the installation\nof the Relief Valve at the Eunice Compressor Station, two ANSI 150 WNRF flanges rated\nto 275 psig were tested to 530 psig. Per ASME B16.5 - 2003 Pipe Flanges and Flanged\nFittings, section 2.6 System Hydrostatic Testing, “Flanged joints and flanged fittings may\nbe subjected to system hydrostatic tests at a pressure of 1.5 times the 38°C (100°F) rating\nrounded off to the next higher 1 bar (25 psi) increment. Testing at any higher pressure is\nthe responsibility of the user, taking into account the requirements of the applicable code or\nregulation.” Per ASME B16.5, an ANSI 150 flange can be tested to 425 psig. The flanges\nwere tested to 530 psig which is 105 psig above the allowed test pressure. TXGT\npersonnel were establishing an MAOP of 275 psig.\n2. §192.475 Internal corrosion control: General.\n(b) Whenever any pipe is removed from a pipeline for any reason, the internal surface\nmust be inspected for evidence of corrosion. If internal corrosion is found-\n(1) The adjacent pipe must be investigated to determine the extent of internal\ncorrosion:\n(2) Replacement must be made to the extent required by the applicable\nparagraphs of §192.485, §192.487, or §192,489; and,\n(3) Steps must be taken to minimize the internal corrosion.\nTXGT did not perform the required inspection of the internal surface when the pipe was\nremoved or the internal surface exposed. During the review of the TXGT inspection forms\nTXG-92 ‘Pipeline Inspection & Repair Report’ for the years 2007-2011; PHMSA noted on\n13 occasions in the areas Bastrop-Guthrie, Pineville-Columbia, and Eunice-Woodlawn that\nno internal pipe surface inspections for internal corrosion were documented when pipe\nsections were replaced or valves were installed in the pipe.\n3. §192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies\nEach operator shall include the following in its operating and maintenance plan:\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\n2\n\n\n\nprocedures for handling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and\nupdated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once\neach calendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline\nsystem commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations\nwhere operations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nTXGT failed to follow their procedures on multiple occasions. TXGT created a set of\noperations and maintenance manuals that detail how TXGT will be performing certain\noperations and maintenance tasks. The requirements set forth in these manuals must be\nfollowed to ensure safety and compliance with the regulations. The following instances\ndetail where TXGT failed to follow their procedures.\n§192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(c) If atmospheric corrosion is found during an inspection, the operator must provide\nprotection against the corrosion as required by Sec. 192.479.\nTXGT personnel failed to follow their procedures and remediate external corrosion graded\nas P4 within the 180-day time period. During the review of the Atmospheric Corrosion\nControl records, PHMSA noted at facility 2460 Deep Saline (PELTEX) located in the\nMorgan City/Offshore area, the 1/25/2008 inspection graded the corrosion as P4F3S2. A\nfollow-up inspection was conducted on 5/21/2008 and graded the site at P4F4S3. The 2009\ninspection was conducted on 1/25/2009 and graded the atmospheric corrosion at the site as\nP4F4S4. In short the number 4 is defined by TXGT as “4 = heavy corrosion, pitting,\nscaling and metal loss.” The TXGT O&M, Corrosion Control Procedure OM.20.13.01.08,\nAtmospheric and Offshore Splash Zone Corrosion Inspections, section 5, Remedial\nActions, 5.1.1 states, ‘After inspection, piping, flanges, and straps and supports with a\ncorrosion condition of 4 require remediation within 180 days.\n’ Documentation was\nprovided that stated that the remediation work was to begin in November of 2008. The\nremediation work was completed and invoiced on 12/05/2008. The remediation exceeded\nthe 180 days required in the TXGT procedures and fails to explain the grading of the site as\nP4F4S4 on 1/25/2009.\n§192.736 Compressor stations: Gas detection.\n(c) Each gas detection and alarm system required by this section must be maintained to\nfunction properly. The maintenance must include performance tests.\nTXGT personnel failed to follow procedures and calibrate the gas detector devices to\nwithin the required operating range of 0% LEL to 50% LEL at the Sharon Compressor\nStation during the 2010 and 2011 annual testing and maintenance. The gas detection\nsystems at compressor stations require testing and maintenance to ensure proper operation\nper 192.736(c). The TXGT Electrical and Automation Policy OM.30.03.00.05, Gas\nDetection, Policy section 1.3.1 states, ‘All gas detection devices will be calibrated at least\n3\n\n\n\nonce each calendar year not to exceed 15 months, except where shorter intervals are\nrequired by the manufacturer’. The TXGT Work Instruction, WI-01085 Testing &\nMaintaining Gas Detection Alarm/Shutdown Systems, step 4.3 states, ‘Calibrate all\nsensors per manufacturer’s instructions and check at:\n• ‘Alarm’ shall be set at 20% LEL\n• ‘Shutdown’ shall be set at 40% LEL\n• Calibration gas level at 50%’\nTXGT calibrates 16 gas detectors at the Sharon Compressor Station quarterly and performs\ncalibration and functional testing of each device annually. During the annual calibration\ntesting for 2010 and 2011, TXGT personnel failed to calibrate the upper limit of various\ngas detectors to the required limit of 50%. The ‘As Left’ value of the upper limit was\nshown at 57% for one detector in 2010. In 2011, the ‘As Left’ value of the upper limit was\nshown at 58% for one detector in 2011.\n4. §192.705 Transmission lines: Patrolling.\n(b) The frequency of patrols is determined by the size of the line, the operating\npressures, the class location, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors, but\nintervals between patrols may not be longer than prescribed in the following table:\nClass Location\nof the Line\nMaximum interval between patrols\nAt Highway and Railroad\nCrossing\nAt all other places\n1, 2 7 ½ months, but at least twice\neach calendar year\n15 months, but at least one time each\ncalendar year\n3 4 ½ months, but at least four\ntimes each calendar year\n7 ½ months, but at least twice each\ncalendar year\n4 4 ½ months, but at least four\ntimes each calendar year\n4 ½ months, but at least four times\neach calendar year\nTXGT failed to meet the required patrolling intervals on several occasions. The Boardwalk\nPipeline Partners O&M Manual, chapter 11, section 2.2 Frequency of Surveillance, table 2-\n1 requires for class 1&2 at Highway and Railroad Crossings, the maximum frequency is\ntwice each calendar year, at intervals not exceeding 7 ½ months. During the review of the\nTXGT Land Patrol Report - Semi-Annual Road and Railroad Crossings, PHMSA found\nthat in the calendar year 2007, TXGT exceeded the required patrolling interval on 41\nseparate occasions in the Morgan City area.\n5. §192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and testing.\n(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs), and Pressure\nregulating station and its equipment must be subjected at intervals not exceeding\n15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to inspections and tests to\ndetermine that it is-\n4\n\n\n\n(1) In good mechanical condition;\n(2) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the\nservice in which it is employed;\n(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, set to control or relieve at\nthe correct pressure consistent with the pressure limits of §192.201(a); and\n(4) Properly installed and protected from dirt, liquids, or other conditions that\nmight prevent proper operation.\nTXGT failed to comply with the requirements of §192.739(a). During the review of the\nRegulator Condensed Inventory - Inspection Records with Capacity Review - 510 Morgan\nCity, PHMSA noted that the annual inspection and testing data for the following facilities:\nA730-G-16 REL Avoca Island #1 Relief Valve 9488 and C234-G-6 REG/FCPO Old Camp\nPass 9012 were missing for various years.\n• Avoca Island #1 Relief Valve 9488 inspection data was missing for calendar year\n2007.\n• Old Camp Pass 9012 inspection data was missing for calendar years 2008 and 2009.\nNo other documentations or information was provided to indicate these inspections and\ntests were performed.\n6. §192.709 Transmission lines: Record keeping.\nEach operator shall maintain the following records for transmission line for the\nperiods specified:\n(a) The date, location, and description of each repair made to pipe (including pipe-to-\npipe connections) must be retained for as long as the pipe remains in service.\n(b) The date, location, and description of each repair made to parts of the pipeline\nsystem other than pipe must be retained for at least 5 years. However, repairs\ngenerated by patrols, surveys, inspections, or tests required by subparts SubPart\nL and M of this part must be retained in accordance with paragraph (c) of this\nsection.\n(c) A record of each patrol, survey, inspection, and test required by subparts L and\nM of this part must be retained for at least 5 years or until the next patrol, survey,\ninspection, or test is completed, whichever is longer.\nTXGT failed to maintain appropriate records for tests required by subpart M. During the\nreview of the Regulator Condensed Inventory - Inspection Records with Capacity Review -\n510 Morgan City, PHMSA noted that the annual inspection and testing data for the\nfollowing facilities: A730-G-16 REL Avoca Island #1 Relief Valve 9488; B705-G-30 REL\nBlk 20 Burlington 9552; C234-G-6 REG/FCPO Old Camp Pass 9012; L420-G-29 REL\nSouth Lake Pagie 2198; and L440-G-27 REL Lake Pagie 2845 were missing for various\nyears.\n5\n\n\n\n• Avoca Island #1 Relief Valve 9488 inspection data was missing for calendar year\n2007.\n• Blk 20 Burlington 9552 inspection data was missing for calendar year 2008.\n• Old Camp Pass 9012 inspection data was missing for calendar years 2008 and 2009.\n• South Lake Pagie 2198 inspection data was missing for calendar years 2008 and\n2009.\n• Lake Pagie 2845 inspection data was missing for calendar year 2008.\nTXGT provided PHMSA with an Affidavit from Forest Oliver, a former employee of\nTXGT, regarding some of the missing documentation. Also provided was a letter and\nattachments from Terry Moody, System Measurement Leader, regarding some of the\nmissing documentation. The Affidavit states that Forest Oliver did inspect and maintain\nBlk 20 Burlington 9552 in June 2008, South Lake Pagie 2198 in June 2008 and August\n2009, and Lake Pagie 2845 in June 2008. An affidavit is not the proper record for this type\nof inspection or test.\n7. §192.743 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Capacity o","truncated":true,"body_characters":45921}