{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420181010","title":"PINE PRAIRIE ENERGY CENTER LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2018-10-04","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.605(a), 192.611(d), 192.805(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420181010.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420181010.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420181010","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420181010","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PINE PRAIRIE ENERGY CENTER LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.605(a),  192.611(d),  192.805(b). The case was opened on 2018-10-04 and is reported as closed as of 2019-05-20. Proposed civil penalty: $82,300. Assessed civil penalty: $82,300. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420181010_Final Order_05202019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420181010/420181010_Final%20Order_05202019.pdf\n\n420181010_Final Order_05202019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420181010/420181010_Final%20Order_05202019_text.pdf\n\n420181010_NOPV PCP_10042018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420181010/420181010_NOPV%20PCP_10042018.pdf\n\n420181010_NOPV PCP_10042018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420181010/420181010_NOPV%20PCP_10042018_text.pdf\n\n420181010_Operator Response to Notice_11052018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420181010/420181010_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_11052018.pdf\n\n420181010_Final Order_05202019_text.pdf\n\nMay 20, 2019\nMr. Willie Chiang\nChief Executive Officer and Director\nPlains All American Pipeline, LP\n333 Clay Street, Suite 1600\nHouston, Texas 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2018-1010\nDear Mr. Chiang:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $82,300 against PAA Natural Gas Storage, a subsidiary\nof Plains All American Pipeline, LP. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of the full\npenalty amount, by wire transfer, dated October 31, 2018. This enforcement action is now\nclosed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing, as\nprovided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwestern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Dean Gore, Vice President, Environmental and Regulatory Compliance, Plains All\nAmerican Pipeline, LP\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 )\n)\n)\nPAA Natural Gas Storage, )\na subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, LP, )\nRespondent. )\n________________________________________________)\n) CPF No. 4-2018-1010\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom January 6 through June 27, 2017, 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 Pine Prairie\nEnergy Center, which operates a salt dome gas storage facility with an 82.5 mile pipeline system\nin Ville Platte, Louisiana.1,2 Pine Prairie Energy Center is a subsidiary of PAA Natural Gas\nStorage (PAA or Respondent). PAA is an indirect subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline,\nLP (Plains), and handles Plains’ natural gas storage operations.\n3\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwestern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated October 4, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil\nPenalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nPAA had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.805(b), 192.611(d), and 192.605(a) and proposed assessing a\ncivil penalty of $82,300 for the alleged violations.\nPAA responded to the Notice by letter dated November 5, 2018 (Response). The company did\nnot contest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $82,300 by wire\ntransfer on October 31, 2018. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.208(a)(1), such payment\nauthorizes the Associate Administrator to make findings of violation and to issue this final order\nwithout further proceedings.\n1 Plains Natural Gas Storage website, available at https://www.plainsallamerican.com/about-us/subsidiary-\nwebsites/paa-natural-gas-storage (last accessed February 7, 2019).\n2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report, (October 4, 2018) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n3 Plains website, available at https://www.plainsallamerican.com/about-us/subsidiary-websites (last accessed\nFebruary 1, 2019).\n\n\n\nCPF 4-2018-1010\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, PAA 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. § 192.805(b), which states:\n§ 192.805 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks\nare qualified;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b) by failing to ensure through\nevaluation that eight individuals were qualified to perform covered tasks as follows. The Notice\nalleged that from 2014-2016, PAA failed to ensure through evaluation that two individuals were\nqualified to perform Covered Task 55: Maintain Fixed Gas Detection Equipment to Complete\nGas Detector Calibrations. In addition, the Notice alleged that a controller’s qualification to\nperform Covered Task 43.4/52.4: Remotely Operate Valves on a Gas Pipeline System (Control\nCenter) had expired when the controller performed the task in 2015 and 2016.\nLastly, the Notice alleged that PAA failed to ensure through evaluation that five individuals were\nqualified to perform four covered tasks, namely: Covered Task 43.1: Start-up of a Liquid\nPipeline (Control Center); Covered Task 43.2: Shutdown of a Liquid Pipeline (Control Center);\nCovered Task 43.3: Monitor Pressures, Flows, Communications and Maintain them within\nAllowable Limits on a Liquid Pipeline System (Control Center); and Covered Task 43.4:\nRemotely Operate Valves on a Liquid Pipeline System (Control Center).\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. § 192.805(b) by failing to ensure\nthrough evaluation that eight individuals performing covered tasks are qualified.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.611(d), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.611 Change in class location: Confirmation or revision of maximum\nallowable operating pressure.\n(a) . . . .\n(d) Confirmation or revision of the maximum allowable operating pressure that\nis required as a result of a study under § 192.609 must be completed within 24\nmonths of the change in class location. . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.611(d) by failing to confirm or\nrevise its maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) within 24 months of a change in class\nlocation. Specifically, the Notice alleged that in March 2009, PAA experienced a change in class\nlocation for a segment of Line 100 in Evangeline Parish, Louisiana, due to the development of a\n\n\n\nCPF 4-2018-1010\nPage 3\nnew trailer park, but did not reduce its MAOP from 1350 psig to 1219 psig until March 2017.\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. § 192.611(d) by failing to revise its\nMAOP within 24 months of a change in class location.\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 emergencies.\n(a) 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 once 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.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow control\nroom management procedures. Specifically, the Notice alleged that PAA failed to follow its\nNatural Gas Storage Control Room Management Plan, Chapter 10, Compliance and Deviations\n(CRM Plan), in recording acceptable deviations from the maximum limit of controller hours of\nservice.\nThe Notice alleged that Section 10.4 of the CRM Plan, Acceptable Deviations, provided a list of\nacceptable deviations from the maximum limit of controller hours of service. The Notice alleged\nfurther that from January 2014 through December 2016, PAA repeatedly documented deviations\nfrom the maximum limit on controller hours of service on its Control Room Deviation Form,\nciting “vacation relief,” “vacation/sick relief,” and “safety committee/training” as justification.\nThe Notice alleged that none of those justifications are provided for in the CRM Plan.\nIn addition, the Notice alleged that PAA failed to follow Section 10.3 of the CRM Plan, Deviations,\nwhich requires that documentation of all deviations must be available, including applicable analysis,\nto support any approved deviation.\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\nCRM Plan, Chapter 10, Compliance and Deviations, in recording acceptable deviations from the\nmaximum limit of controller hours of service.\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\n\n\nCPF 4-2018-1010\nPage 4\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.4 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 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; any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil\npenalty of $82,300 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $21,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.805(b), for failing to ensure through evaluation that eight individuals were qualified to\nperform six covered tasks. PAA neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or\nargument justifying a reduction in, or elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$21,400 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $29,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.611(d), for failing to revise its MAOP within 24 months of a change in class location.\nPAA neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a\nreduction in or elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record\nand considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $29,300 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.611(d).\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $31,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.605(a), for failing to follow its CRM Plan, in recording acceptable deviations from the\nmaximum limit of controller hours of service. PAA neither contested the allegation nor\npresented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed\npenalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I\nassess Respondent a civil penalty of $31,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nitems cited above, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $82,300, which was paid in full by wire\ntransfer on October 31, 2018.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nMay 20, 2019\n___________________________________ _________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n4 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223; Revisions to Civil Penalty Amounts,\n83 Fed. Reg. 60732, 60744 (Nov. 27, 2018).","truncated":false,"body_characters":13198}