{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420182002","title":"BLACK MARLIN PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2018-10-30","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.477, 192.479(a), 192.605(a), 192.707(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420182002.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420182002.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420182002","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420182002","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BLACK MARLIN PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.477,  192.479(a),  192.605(a),  192.707(a). The case was opened on 2018-10-30 and is reported as closed as of 2019-06-19. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420182002_Final Order_06192019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420182002/420182002_Final%20Order_06192019.pdf\n\n420182002_Final Order_06192019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420182002/420182002_Final%20Order_06192019_text.pdf\n\n420182002_NOPV PCO_10302018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420182002/420182002_NOPV%20PCO_10302018.pdf\n\n420182002_NOPV PCO_10302018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420182002/420182002_NOPV%20PCO_10302018_text.pdf\n\n420182002_Operator Response to Notice_11292018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420182002/420182002_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_11292018.pdf\n\n420182002_Final Order_06192019_text.pdf\n\nJune 19, 2019\nMr. Alan S. Armstrong\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nWilliams Partners, LP\nOne Williams Center\nTulsa, Oklahoma 74172\nRe: CPF No. 4-2018-2002\nDear Mr. Armstrong:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary,\nBlack Marlin Pipeline Company. It makes findings of violation and finds that Black Marlin has\ncompleted the actions specified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations.\nTherefore, this case is now closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon\nthe date of mailing, as provided 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, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Clint Ratke, Manager, Pipeline Safety, Black Marlin Pipeline Company, Williams\nPartners, LP, 2800 Post Oak Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77056\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 )\nBlack Marlin Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 4-2018-2002\na subsidiary of Williams Partners, LP, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom January 24 through May 31, 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 Black\nMarlin Pipeline Company (Black Marlin or Respondent) in Texas City, Texas. Black Marlin, a\nsubsidiary of Williams Partners, LP, operates a 55-mile, 16-inch, natural gas gathering system\noriginating offshore at High Island 136 and transporting natural gas into the Texas City area.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated October 30, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice), which also included warning items pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205.\nIn accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Black Marlin had\nviolated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.477 and 192.707 and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain\nmeasures to correct the alleged violations. The warning items required no further action, but\nwarned the operator to correct the probable violations or face possible future enforcement action.\nBlack Marlin responded to the Notice by letter dated November 29, 2018 (Response). The\ncompany did not contest the allegations of violation but provided information concerning the\ncorrective actions it had taken. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived\nits right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Black Marlin did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49\nC.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\n1 The Williams Companies, Inc., website, available at https://co.williams.com/gulf coast/black-marlin/ (last\naccessed February 20, 2019). See also Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report) at 1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2018-2002\nPage 2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.477, which states:\n§ 192.477 Internal corrosion control: Monitoring.\nIf corrosive gas is being transported, coupons or other suitable means\nmust be used to determine the effectiveness of the steps taken to minimize\ninternal corrosion. Each coupon or other means of monitoring internal\ncorrosion must be checked two times each calendar year, but with intervals\nnot exceeding 7½ months.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.477 by failing to monitor its\noffshore natural gas gathering pipeline system for internal corrosion. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Black Marlin did not perform gas sampling or monitoring of its system from 2014 to\n2016. During the OPS inspection, Black Marlin was unable to produce internal-corrosion\nmonitoring records during this time period. Additionally, OPS noted that following an incident\nin April 2014, the pipeline was taken out of service and shut-in at approximately 50 psig. Since\nthen, the pipeline has not transported product and has been disconnected from all sources of\nsupply.\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. § 192.477 by failing to monitor its\noffshore natural-gas gathering pipeline system for internal corrosion.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.707, which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.707 Line markers for mains and transmissions lines.\n(a) Buried pipelines. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this\nsection, a line marker must be placed and maintained as close as\npractical over each buried main and transmission line:\n(1) At each crossing of a public road and railroad; and\n(2) Wherever necessary to identify the location of the transmission\nline or main to reduce the possibility of damage or interference.\n(b) . . .\n(d) Marker warning. The following must be written legibly on a\nbackground of sharply contrasting color on each line marker:\n(1) The word “Warning,” “Caution,” or “Danger” followed by the\nwords “Gas (or name of gas transported) Pipeline” all of which, except\nfor markers in heavily developed urban areas, must be in letters at least\n1 inch (25 millimeters) high with 1/4 inch (6.4 millimeters) stroke.\n(2) The name of the operator and the telephone number (including\narea code) where the operator can be reached at all times.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.707 by failing to place and\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2018-2002\nPage 3\nmaintain line markers in accordance with the requirements of that section.2 Specifically, the\nNotice and Violation Report alleged that Black Marlin failed to place a line marker at the\nentrance of the Pelican Harbour Subdivision, where the main line crosses a public road and\nwhere a marker would be visible to the public. Instead, line markers were allegedly placed on\nthe fences of residents on the corner, in a manner that was not visible to the public. Additionally,\nthe Violation Report noted that Williams had violated § 192.707 by failing to place and maintain\nline markers as close as practical over each buried main and transmission line.3\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. § 192.707 by failing to place and\nmaintain line markers in accordance with the requirements of that section.\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 and 4 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.477 and 192.707, respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a),\neach person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility\nis required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The\nDirector indicates that Respondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed\ncompliance order:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.477 (Item 1), Respondent has inserted\ncorrosion coupons to monitor internal corrosion on the pipeline system , has purged\nthe pipeline of gas, and pressurized it with nitrogen. In its Response, Black Marlin\nindicated that it was not proceeding with abandonment pursuant to § 192.727 and will\ncontinue to monitor and maintain the pipeline in accordance with the requirements of\nPart 192.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 192.707 (Item 4), Respondent provided\ndocumentation to PHMSA on November 29, 2018, that line markers were installed in\nthe Pelican Harbour Subdivision.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations.\nTherefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\n2 The Notice inadvertently alleged that Respondent violated only paragraph (d) of § 192.707(d), but the Notice and\nthe Violation Report specified violations of both paragraph (d) and other provisions of § 192.707.\n3 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report) (October 30, 2018) (on file with PHMSA), at 27.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2018-2002\nPage 4\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 2 and 3, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for either of these items. Therefore, these are\nconsidered to be warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to ensure that the\nabove-ground sections of piping at the Kinder Morgan Facility Meter Station\nwere cleaned and coated; and\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow specific\nprovisions in its Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Manual.4\nBlack Marlin presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection,\nRespondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and\nmeet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The terms of the order, including corrective\naction, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nJune 19, 2019\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n4 The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to follow specific provisions of its O&M Manual, including: (1) its\nEmergency Plan for the Western Gulf of Mexico; (2) Williams SIP Plan, Procedure 7.05-ADM-008 – Internal\nCorrosion Control Program, Section 2.6; (3) Williams SIP Emergency Response Plan for Western Gulf od Mexico,\nProcedure 12.01-ADM-002 – Emergency Response or Drill, Section 4.7.1; and (4) Williams SIP Plan, Procedure\n9.08-ADM-001 – Job Planning.","truncated":false,"body_characters":11839}