{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420135013","title":"TRINITY PIPELINE GP LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-06-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.442(c), 195.571, 195.573(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420135013.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420135013.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420135013","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420135013","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TRINITY PIPELINE GP LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.442(c),  195.571,  195.573(a). The case was opened on 2013-06-13 and is reported as closed as of 2014-03-31. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420135013_Closure_03312014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420135013/420135013_Closure_03312014.pdf\n\n420135013_Closure_03312014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420135013/420135013_Closure_03312014_text.pdf\n\n420135013_Final Order_12192013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420135013/420135013_Final%20Order_12192013.pdf\n\n420135013_Final Order_12192013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420135013/420135013_Final%20Order_12192013_text.pdf\n\n420135013_NOPV PCO_06132013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420135013/420135013_NOPV%20PCO_06132013.pdf\n\n420135013_NOPV PCO_06132013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420135013/420135013_NOPV%20PCO_06132013_text.pdf\n\n420135013_Operator Response to Notice_07122013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420135013/420135013_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_07122013.pdf\n\n420135013_Closure_03312014_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMarch 31, 2014\nMr. Barry Petty\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nTrinity Pipeline GP LLC\n401 West Wall Street\nMidland, Texas 79701\nCPF 4-2013-5013\nDear Mr. Petty:\nOn December 16, 2013, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued to\nTrinity Pipeline GP LLC a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included a Compliance\nOrder. Based on our review of the documentation you provided, it has been determined that you have\ncomplied 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 Safety Administration\n\n420135013_Final Order_12192013_text.pdf\n\nDECEMBER 19, 2013\nMr. Barry Petty\nPresident & CEO\nTrinity Pipeline GP, LLC\n401 West Wall Street\nMidland, TX 79701\nRe: CPF No. 4-2013-5013\nDear Mr. Petty:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Trinity Pipeline GP, LLC, to comply with\nthe pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as\ndetermined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service\nof the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided 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. Rodrick M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\nMr. Bryan Hargrove, Senior Vice President, Trinity Pipeline GP, LLC\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 )\nTrinity Pipeline GP, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2013-5013\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn September 9-14, 2012, and September 17-20, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a\nrepresentative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and\nrecords of Trinity Pipeline GP, LLC (Trinity or Respondent), near Seminole, Texas. Trinity\noperates a carbon dioxide (CO2) supply and transportation business with approximately 185\nmiles of CO2 pipeline.1 PHMSA’s inspection covered Trinity’s Hobbs Facility and\napproximately 100 miles of CO2 pipeline between Texas and New Mexico.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated June 13, 2013, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Trinity had committed\nvarious violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and ordering Respondent to take certain measures to\ncorrect the alleged violations. The warning item required no further action but warned the\noperator to correct the probable violation or face possible enforcement action.\nTrinity responded to the Notice by letters dated July 12 and August 5, 2013 (collectively,\nResponse). The company did not contest the allegations of violation but provided information\nconcerning the corrective actions it had taken. Respondent did not request a hearing and\ntherefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Trinity did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 195, as follows:\n1 Trinity website, available at http://www.trinityco2.com/businesses (last accessed December 6, 2013).\n\n\n\n2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline\nsystem a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations\nand maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes\nmade as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall\nbe prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and\nappropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to prepare and\nfollow its own manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance\nactivities. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Trinity failed to follow its own Operations &\nMaintenance (O&M) Procedures for selecting a repair method for shallow gouges and grooves.\nThe Notice further alleged that Trinity failed to follow the repair procedures required by ASME\nB31.4, referenced in Trinity’s O&M manual, by installing a “Clock Spring” composite sleeve\ninstead of using one of the three repair methods specified by the manual.\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. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its\nown manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline\nsystem a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations\nand maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes\nmade as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall\nbe prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and\nappropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its own\nmanual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Trinity failed to follow Section 1.14.2, Activity – General, of\nits O&M manual, which requires employees performing covered tasks related to corrosion\ncontrol to meet minimum training requirements. It alleged that Trinity employees engaged in\ncorrosion control had not been certified by NACE as “Cathodic Protection Testers,” as required\n\n\n\n3\nby Trinity’s own procedures.\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. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its\nown manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571, which states:\n§ 195.571 What criteria must I use to determine the adequacy of\ncathodic protection?\nCathodic protection required by this Subpart must comply with one or\nmore of the applicable criteria and other considerations for cathodic\nprotection contained in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of NACE SP 0169\n(incorporated by reference, see §195.3).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571 by failing to comply with one\nor more of the applicable criteria and other considerations for cathodic protection contained in\nparagraph 6.2 of NACE SP 0169. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Trinity failed to consider\nthe voltage drop required by paragraph 6.2 of NACE SP 0169 when determining the adequacy of\ncathodic protection on its pipeline system.\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. § 195.571 by failing to comply with\nthe applicable criteria and other considerations for cathodic protection contained in paragraph 6.2\nof NACE SP 0169.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine\nwhether cathodic protection required by this subpart complies with\n§195.571:\n(1) . . . .\n(2) Identify not more than 2 years after cathodic protection is\ninstalled, the circumstances in which a close-interval survey or\ncomparable technology is practicable and necessary to accomplish the\nobjectives of paragraph 10.1.1.3 of NACE SP 0169 (incorporated by\nreference, see §195.3).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a) by failing to identify the\ncircumstances in which a close-interval survey or comparable technology was practicable and\nnecessary to accomplish the objectives of paragraph 10.1.1.3 of NACE SP 0169. Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that Trinity had never completed an interrupted survey or a close-interval\nsurvey on its cathodically protected pipeline, and, therefore, that Trinity had failed to identify,\nwithin the allotted two-year interval, the procedures necessary to accomplish the objectives of\n\n\n\n4\nparagraph 10.1.1.3 of NACE SP 0169.\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. § 195.573(a) by failing to identify the\ncircumstances in which a close-interval survey or comparable technology was practicable and\nnecessary to accomplish the objectives of paragraph 10.1.1.3 of NACE SP 0169, not more than\ntwo years after cathodic protection was installed on its pipeline system.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.402(a), 195.402(a), 195.571, and 195.573(a), respectively. Under\n49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601. The Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions\nto address one of the cited violations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.402(a) (Item 2), Respondent has ensured\nthat its employees who are involved in corrosion control have successfully\ncompleted the training specified in its written procedures. Respondent has\nprovided documentation that its Senior Pipeline Operator successfully completed\nNACE CP1 – Cathodic Protection Tester certification in January 2013.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,\nthe compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Item 2 are not included in this Order.\nAs for the remaining compliance terms, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and\n49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance\nwith the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.402(a) (Item 1), Respondent must submit a\nplan to remove the improperly installed clock spring and remediate the defect.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.571 (Item 4), Respondent must develop a\nprocess for consideration of voltage drop and implement that process. Trinity\nmust provide PHMSA with the process and the results of the implementation.\n3. With respect to the violation of § 195.573(a) (Item 5), Respondent must identify\nthe circumstances in which a close-interval survey or comparable technology is\npracticable and necessary to accomplish the objectives of paragraph 10.1.1.3 of\nNACE SP 0169 and conduct a close-interval survey or use comparable\ntechnology as practicable and necessary.\n\n\n\n5\n4. Respondent must submit plans required by these items within 30 days of receipt\nof this Final Order and must implement all corrective actions required by this\nCompliance Order within 90 days of receipt of this Final Order.\n5. PHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit\nthe total to the Director. PHMSA requests that Respondent report these costs in\ntwo categories: (1) total cost associated with preparation and revision of plans,\nprocedures, studies, and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with replacements,\nadditions, 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 administrative assessment of civil penalties not\nto exceed $200,000 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 3, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 195 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. § 195.442(c) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to properly locate\nand mark its buried CO2 pipeline in the area of excavation activity.\nTrinity presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to address\nthe cited item. If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent\nmay 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","truncated":false,"body_characters":15723}