{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420131002","title":"TRANSWESTERN PIPELINE COMPANY LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-01-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.465(b), 192.605(a), 192.745(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420131002.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420131002.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420131002","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420131002","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TRANSWESTERN PIPELINE COMPANY LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.465(b),  192.605(a),  192.745(a). The case was opened on 2013-01-23 and is reported as closed as of 2013-08-22. Proposed civil penalty: $53,200. Assessed civil penalty: $53,200. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420131002_Final Order_08222013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420131002/420131002_Final%20Order_08222013.pdf\n\n420131002_Final Order_08222013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420131002/420131002_Final%20Order_08222013_text.pdf\n\n420131002_NOPV PCP_01232013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420131002/420131002_NOPV%20PCP_01232013.pdf\n\n420131002_NOPV PCP_01232013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420131002/420131002_NOPV%20PCP_01232013_text.pdf\n\n420131002_Operator Response_02262013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420131002/420131002_Operator%20Response_02262013.pdf\n\n420131002_Final Order_08222013_text.pdf\n\nAUGUST 22, 2013\nMr. Ryan Coffey\nExecutive VP Operations\nTranswestern Pipeline Company, LLC\n800 E. Sonterra Blvd, Suite 400\nSan Antonio, TX 78258\nMr. Kelcy L. Warren\nChairman and Chief Executive Officer\nEnergy Transfer Partners, L.P.\n3738 Oak Lawn Avenue\nDallas, TX 75219\nRe: CPF No. 4-2013-1002\nGentlemen:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $53,200. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of\nthe full penalty amount, by wire transfer, dated February 27, 2013. This case is now closed.\nService of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as\notherwise 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. Nathan Hlavaty, Director, Interstate Regulatory Compliance, Energy Transfer –\nTranswestern Pipeline Company, LLC, 711 Louisiana Street, Suite 900, Houston, TX\nMr. R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, 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____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nTranswestern Pipeline Company, LLC, ) a subsidiary of Energy Transfer )\nPartners, L.P. )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nCPF No. 4-2013-1002\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween May 25 and December 2, 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 multiple units of Transwestern Pipeline\nCompany, LLC’s (Transwestern or Respondent) facilities in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.\nTranswestern is a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.1 Transwestern operates\napproximately 2,700 miles of natural gas transmission pipelines from the San Juan, Anadarko,\nand Permian Basins to markets in the Midwest, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and\nCalifornia.\n2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated January 23, 2013, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil\nPenalty (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance\nwith 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Transwestern violated 49 C.F.R.\n§§ 192.745(a) and 192.465(b) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $53,200 for the alleged\nviolations. The warning item required no further action, but warned the operator to correct the\nprobable violation.\nTranswestern responded to the Notice by letter dated February 26, 2013 (Response). The\ncompany acknowledged the violations, provided information concerning the corrective actions it\n1 On December 1, 2006, Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC became a new operating subsidiary of Energy\nTransfer Partners, L.P. See http://www.energytransfer.com/company_history.aspx.\n2 See http://www.energytransfer.com/ops_interstate_tw.aspx (last assessed July 6, 2013).\n\n\n\n2\nhad taken and paid the proposed civil penalty of $53,200, as provided in 49 C.F.R. § 190.227.3\nPayment of the penalty serves to close the case with prejudice to Respondent.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its response, Transwestern did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated\n49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: 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 nine\ntransmission line valves that might be required during any emergency at intervals not exceeding\n15 months, but at least once each calendar year during the 2009-2010 period. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that Transwestern’s records demonstrated that the company had exceeded the\nrequired interval for inspection by 45 days for one valve, 32 days for three valves and 27 days\nfor five valves, as more fully described in the Notice.4 Respondent acknowledged that it had not\ninspected the specified valves within the required interval. Accordingly, based upon a review of\nall of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a) by failing to inspect\nnine transmission line valves that might be required during an emergency at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.\nItem 2: 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 partially\noperate three specified transmission line valves that might be required during any emergency at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Transwestern did not partially operate valves #1101, #1108, and #1109, while\nperforming its annual inspections for three consecutive years, 2009, 2010, and 2011. 5 In its\nResponse, Transwestern acknowledged its non-compliance.6 Accordingly, based upon a review\n3 Response at 1.\n4 Violation Report at Exhibit A.\n5 Violation Report at Exhibits B and C.\n6 Response at 2.\n\n\n\n3\nof all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a) by failing to\ninspect and partially operate three transmission line valves for three consecutive years, at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(b), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) . . .\n(b) Each cathodic protection rectifier or other impressed current\npower source must be inspected six times each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 2½ months, to insure that it is operating.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(b) by failing to inspect three\nspecified rectifier facilities, six times each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 2½\nmonths, to insure that they were operating during 2011. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nTranswestern failed to inspect three rectifier facilities within the required interval and exceeded\nthe required interval by 66 days, as fully described in the Notice.7 In its response, Transwestern\nacknowledged its non-compliance. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I\nfind that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(b) by failing to inspect three rectifier facilities\nsix times each calendar year, with intervals not exceeding 2½ months.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\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 total civil penalty of $53,200 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $15,200 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a), for failing to inspect nine transmission valves that might be required\nduring an emergency at intervals not exceeding 15 months and for exceeding the required\nintervals between 27 and 45 days. In its Response, Transwestern acknowledged its failure to\ninspect the nine transmission valves and stated that the company had revised its procedures to\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\n7 Violation Report at Exhibit D.\n\n\n\n4\nprevent future occurrences. Respondent was cognizant of the requirement for the inspection and\ntesting of valves but failed to do so. Performing annual valve inspections is a fundamental\nrequirement for safely operating a pipeline. The purpose of performing periodic maintenance\ninspections is to ensure that all valves will be operational if the need to close them arises, such as\nduring a spill, failure, or emergency. Transwestern paid the proposed penalty for the alleged\nviolation, which serves to close the case with prejudice.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $15,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a), which has already\nbeen paid by Respondent.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $27,700 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a), for failing to inspect and partially operate three transmission valves that\nmight be used in an emergency, for three consecutive years, exceeding the requirement to inspect\nat intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.\nIn its response, Transwestern stated that the company is implementing smart forms that require\npersonnel to populate required fields on the form during annual inspections, and prevent the\nclosure or acceptance of a record as completed without populating the required fields to fully\ndocument valve inspections.\nWhile maintaining complete and accurate records is very important to an operator’s ability to\nmake operating decisions, the violation in this case went beyond a paperwork deficiency.\nPerforming annual valve inspections is a fundamental requirement for safely operating a\npipeline. The purpose of performing periodic maintenance inspections is to ensure that all valves\nwill be operational if the need to close them arises, such as during a spill or failure. Failing to\ninspect transmission line valves that might be required during an emergency at the required\nintervals increases the risk that a valve may not function to contain or mitigate a pipeline\nemergency. The company is fully culpable and acknowledged that it was unable to demonstrate\ncompliance. Transwestern paid the proposed penalty for the alleged violation, which serves to\nclose the case with prejudice.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $27,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a), which has already\nbeen paid by Respondent.\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,300 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.465(b), for failing to inspect three cathodic protection rectifiers six times each\ncalendar year, with intervals not exceeding 2½ months, to insure that they were operating.\nIn its Response, Transwestern stated that the valves had been examined prior to the OPS\ninspection, but acknowledged that the company was unable to demonstrate compliance and that\nits records provided to PHMSA did not show that it had conducted cathodic protection testing on\nthe three rectifier facilities. The company also reiterated its plans to implement smart forms to\nprevent future reoccurrences.\n\n\n\n5\nThe company acknowledged that it was unable to demonstrate compliance. Transwestern paid\nthe proposed penalty for the alleged violation, which serves to close the case with prejudice.\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. § 192.465(b), which has already\nbeen paid by Respondent.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 4, the Notice alleged a probable violation 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. § 192.605(a) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its own\nmanual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance (O&M)\nactivities. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Transwestern failed to follow its\nOperating and Maintenance Procedures, No. D.35-Buried Pipe Inspection,\nSection 7.1 Data Collection, which required the technicians to document each\ninspection in the Pipe Inspection Database.8 PHMSA’s inspection revealed\ninconsistent and incomplete pipe inspection reports.9 Transwestern also failed to\nfollow its Valve Inspection and Maintenance Standard Operating Procedures,\nSection 8.0 Documentation Requirements, which required personnel to record on\nthe inspection form the valve position “As Found” and “As Left”.\n10 Respondent’s\ninspection forms had twenty (20) separate instances where the company had not\nfollowed its own procedures, as more fully described in the Notice.11\nTranswestern presented information in its Response showing that it has taken certain actions to\naddress the cited item. If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection,\nRespondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\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\n8 Violation Report at Exhibit E.\n9 Violation Report at Exhibit F.\n10 Violation Report at Exhibit G.\n11 Violation Report at Exhibit H.","truncated":false,"body_characters":15320}