{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520041007","title":"GAS TRANSMISSION NORTHWEST LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2004-02-24","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.13(c), 192.481.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520041007.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520041007.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520041007","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520041007","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving GAS TRANSMISSION NORTHWEST LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.13(c),  192.481. The case was opened on 2004-02-24 and is reported as closed as of 2005-06-20. Proposed civil penalty: $20,000. Assessed civil penalty: $12,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520041007_final order_03102005.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520041007/520041007_final%20order_03102005.pdf\n\n520041007_final order_03102005.pdf\n\nrD\nU.S. Deportmeni\nof Tronsporblbn\nReieorch ond\nSpeciol Progromt\nAdministrolion\n4OO Sevenlh Sl S.W\nWashrnglon. D C 20590\nl\\,14R 1 0 Z(]i;:\nMr. Bob T. Howard\nVice President\nGas Transmission Norlhwest\n1400 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 900\nPortland, OR 97201\nDear Mr. Howard:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the\nabove-referenced case. It makes findings ofviolation and assesses a civil penalty of$12,500' The\npenalty payment and terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes\nautomatically upon payment. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutcs service of that document\nunder 49 C.F.R. Q 190.5.\nSincerely,\nl\\/\n-+o.,- l7l---\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance RegistrY\nOffice of Pipeline SafetY\nEnclosure\nMr. Kevin Cowan, Gas Transmission Northwest\nMr. Alan Rathbun, washington Utilities and Transportation commission\nMr. Chris Hoidal, Director, OPS, Westem Regior\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRJSEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\nOFF'ICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON. DC 20590\nIn the Matter of\nGAS TRANSMISSION NORTHWEST\nCORPORATION\nRespondent.\nCPF No. 5-2004-1007\nFINAL ORDER\nDuring May 19 and23 and between May 28 and29,2003, pursuantto 49 U.S.C. $ 60117,\nrepresentatives of Washington Utilities and Transporlation Commission (WUTC), as agent for the\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (OPS) conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's\nnatural gas pipeline facilities and records in the State of Washington. As a result of the inspection,\nthe Director, Westem Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated February 24,2004, a\nNotice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R.\n5190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had violated 49 C.F.R. $$ 192.13\nandl92.48i andproposedassessingacivilpenaltyof$20,000fortheallegedviolations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated March 19, 2004 (Response). Respondent\ncontested the allegations ofviolation, offered information to explain the allegations and requested\nthat the proposed civil penalty be eliminated. Respondent submitted a request for a heanng by e-\nmail on July 21, 2004. In accordance with {ii90.209, Respondent's hearing request was denied, as\nthe request was made more than 30 days after receipt of the Notice.\nF'INDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem 1 of the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $192.13 (c) by not maintaining,\nmodifying as appropriate, and following the plans, procedures, and programs that it is required to\nestablish under this part. The OPS inspection revealed that Respondent did not foilow written\nprocedures detailing the use of a plasma arc cutting torch to remove a 4?-inch road casing during a\nLighwayproj ect. According to the procedures, the welder simulates the conditions to test the cutting\nmethod andotherdetails oftheprocedure priorto conductingthe actual operation. Theprocedures\nprovided for the use ofa heat shield.\nHowever, Respondent did not perform the simulation test nor was a heat shield used during the\noperation. The plasma arc made contact with the wall of the pipeline and caused three \"divot\" like\ndefects. Respondent repaired the damage to the pipeline in accordance with its procedures.\n\n\n\n2\nThe Notice also alleged that Respondent did not provide documentation to demonstrate that it\nfollowed procedures to conductpre-job briefings, as required by Respondent's OMI KK-71 Pre-Job\nBriefing dated 5llT l}1r Respondent's procedures require pre-job briefing be conducted every day\nto provide instructions to employees when conducting non-routine tasks until thc job is complete.\nIn its response to Item l, Respondent contended that OPS lacked jurisdiction regarding the removal\nof the 42-inch road crossing casing because the removal ofroad casings is not explicitly covered by\n49 C.F.R. Part 192 nor is it included in Respondent's IO&M Plan. Alternatively, it is Respondent's\nposition that it should not be found in violation because of one employee's choice not to follow the\ncompany's written procedures for removal of a road crossing casing. Respondent contended that a\nbriefing rvas held the first day of the job.\nAs lor Respondent's jurisdictional argument, the alleged violation stemmed fiom Respondent's\nfailure to follow its own written procedure for removing casings in a manner that protected the pipe\nfrom damage and in conducting and documenting pre-job briefings with respect to the casing\nactivity. It is irrelevant the Respondent had not included the procedures in its IO&M Plan since the\nactivity in connection with a highlvay project is not a routine one. However, it is an excavation\nactivity for which 49 C.F.R. fi 192.614 requires written procedures to protect the pipeline from\ndamage. ln this case, following the procedure might have prevented the damage that occurred here.\nIt is also irrelevant that removal of casing is not explicitly mentioned in Part 192. Most of the\nregulations inPart 192, including 49 C.F.R. $ 192.614, are performance regulations that allow an\noperator to craft regulations appropriate to the operations of its pipeline. With respect to the pre-job\nbriefings, Respondent has adopted the procedure for pre-job briefings to be applied whenever the\nsafety of some maintenance activity would be improved by it. Respondent recognized the\nimportance of a pre-job briefing on this project by conducting one and cannot then fail to follow the\nprocedure.\nAs for Respondent's argument that the incident would not have occured but for the actions of one\nemployee, an employer is ultimately responsible for the actions of its employees. This is a well-\nsettled rule of law that comes into play when the employer has the right and ability to control or\nsgpervise the activities of an employee. An employer's responsibility is not diminished or affected\nbythe fact that an individual failed to follow Respondent's procedures and failed to consult with\nmanagement or the engineer who developed the road casing removal procedures.\nUltimately, Respondent is responsible for compliance with the pipeline safety regulations. The\nNotice identified instances inwhichResponcient failedto followthe plans,procedures, andprograms\nestablished under $ 192.13. Respondent failed to demonstrate that pre-job briefings were conducted.\nAssuming arguendo, that a f,rrst daypre-jobbriefingwasheld, the proceduresrequireddailybriefing-\nAlso' Respondent's internal investigation revealed that some individuals that worked on the job did\nnot atienri ihe aiieged iii'si day briefing. P\\espondent's failure to foilow the written plans and\nprocedures for removal of the road casing and failure to provide daily instructions to employees\nconducting this non-routine task resulted in damage to the pipeline. Accordingly, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 192.13 by failing to foilow the plans, procedures, and progtams as\nrequired.\n\n\n\nJ\nItem 2 of the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $192.481 by not inspecting\nMainline Valve 6-2 and Mainline Valve 6-3 for atmospheric corrosion at least once every 3 calendar\nyears, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months. The defects on Mainline Yalve 6-2 included\ndisbonded coating on mainline blowdown stacks #13 and #14 with an indication of some visible rust\nbut no corrosion. The defects identified on Mainline Valve 6-3 included coating deflects and\nindications of corrosion at the air-to-soil interface on mainline blowdown stacks #13 and #14. The\nNotice also alleged that similar air-to-soil interface conditions were observed on miscellaneous\npiping at Compressor Stations 6 (Rosalia) and 8 (Wa11u1a). However, no remedial action had been\ntaken to correct the condition until initiation of the OPS inspection on May 19, 2003.\nIn its initial response to Item 2, Respondent argued that effective inspection and remediation\nprocedures were in piace at the time of the inspection. In support of its position, Respondent further\nargued that it cond'-rcted inspections during and al-ter the OPS inspection anC no coating .\"',,as found\nwith severe damage, that at no time in its 40 years of operations has any above ground piping needed\nto be replaced due to atmospheric corrosion and that during the OPS inspection it initiated\nremediation. With respect to the allegation that simiiar air-to-soil interface conditions were obsen'ed\non miscellaneous piping at Compressor Station 6 (Rosalia) and 8 (Wallula), Respondent suggested\nthat closer obserrration was needed to assess the vent line for possible coating deficiencies at Station\n8 and the blow-down stack at Station 6 to assess the condition of the coating. Respondent argued\nthat while its subsequent assessment found that the coating at both locations had some deterioration\nat the surface due to the effects ofultraviolet light, the coating was bonded to the pipe above the soil\nline and there was no deteriorated coating below the soil line. Respondent stated that both locations\nhad been inspected for atmospheric corrosion within the past three years and both sites were found\nto be free from deterioration requiring remediation.\nAlthough Respondent argued that effective inspection and remediation procedures were in place, a\nreview of Respondent's exposed pipe reports revealed defects on Mainline valve 6-2 and Mainline\n6-3 that were originally identihed on April 16, 2001 . In fact, Respondent acknowledged the poor\nperformance of a supewisory empioyee in addressing this matter during 2001 and 2002. The\nevidence showed that no remedial action had been taken to correct the condition until initiation of\nthe OPS inspection on May 19, 2003. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n$ r92.48 | .\nThese findings ofviolation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. g 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 per\n\" i n l o + i n - l ^ r - 4 ^ 1 \" n . . , u q j / ^ F v r r h c r t r v\n. , i n l o t i n n \" n t ^ . - \" ' ; - . r ' \" - ' \" ^ f q l n n n O O O F n r a n r r r e l n t e d c e r i e c n f\nviolations. TheNoticeproposedatotalcivilpenaltyof$20,000forviolationof49C.F.R.$$192.13\nand 192.481.\n\n\n\n4\n49 U.S.C. $ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. $ 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, degree\nof Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to pay the\npenalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on Respondent's\nability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may requirc.\nThe proposed penalty for Item 1 is $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. $ 192.13, as Respondent failed\nto follow the written plans and procedures for removal of the road casing and failed to provide daily\ninshuctions to employees conducting this non-routine task resulted in damage to the pipeline.\nRespondent argued that the proposed civil penalty is inappropriate, as Respondent's investigation\nrevealed that the incident occurred because ofan individual who failed to follow procedures and\nfailed to consult rvith rnar..agement or the engineer r,r,,hs dsr,rslsped the road casing removal\nprocedure. Respondent contended that a briehng was held the first day of the job. Respondent\nadvised that because it takes the circumstances surrounding the casing removal seriously, an\ninvestigation was initiated to identify safety concerns, resolutions to those concems and any\nnecessaryproglam improvements. Respondent argued that the immediate disciplinary actions that\nresulted in termination of the individual's employment and the implementation of program\nimprovements which resulted from the intemal investigation are pritigating factors that support\nelimination of the proposed civil penalty. Respondent advised that it did not take the occurrence\nlightly and that the resulting actions substantiate that stance as well as its overall commitment to\npipeline safety and integrity. Respondent argued that the incident would not have occurred but for\nthe actions of one employee who made an individual choice not to follow the procedures.\nRespondent further advised that the results of the investigation were shared with OPS, WUTC and\nRespondent's employees.\nWhen an employee acts within the scope ofhis authority, as the employer's representative, and fails\nto take appropriate action, that failure is attributable to the employer. The primary objective of the\nFederal gas pipeline safety standards is public safety and failure to follow procedures could adversely\naffect public safety. Respondent failed to follow its manual of written procedures for conducting\noperations, maintenance activities and emergency response. Operators are ultimately responsible\nfor their own compliance with pipeline safety laws and regulations even in the face of mistakes,\nomissions or commissions that occur within its employee's scope of duties. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$5,000. Accordingly, I find Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 192.13(c).\nThe proposed penalty for Item 2 is $15,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. $192.481, as Respondent\nfailed to inspect for atmospheric conosion at least once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not\nexceeding 39 months. Respondent requested reconsideration of the proposed civil penalty.\nA l i L ^ , , ^ L D a - - ^ ^ ; - h + . ' - \" - , - I , L o r i + l \" a o a f f a n t i r ' , . i - c ^ . . + i ^ - . - . 1 ' - - . , l i r ! i n n n r n n , - r l r r r o c\n. a , r r , \\ r u E , ' d , s u r u\nRespondent's exposed pipe repofis revealed defects on the subject areas that were originally\nidentifiecl on April i 6, 2001. The pipe was cleaned and re-coated onMay 22,2003. Documentation\nis essential to provide the Operator a useful review tool for operating practices and procedures.\n\n\n\n5\nA determination is made that Respondent took remedial action prior to the conclusion of the OPS\ninspection to comply with the regulations, which justifies mitigation of the proposed civil penalty.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent\na civil penalty ofS7,500.\nPayrnent of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Payment may be made by\nsending a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number for this case) payable to\n\"U.S. Department of Transportation\" to the Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney\nAeronautical Center, Financial Operations Division (NMZ-I2}), P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City,\noK 7312s.\nFederal regulations (49 C.F.R. $ 89.21 (bX3)) also permit this payment to be made by wire transfer,\nthrough the Federal Resen'e Communications System (Fedwire), to the account ol-the U.S. Trcasury.\nDetailed instructions are contained in the encloswe. Questions conceming wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMoruoneyAeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $5,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in\naccordance with 31 U.S.C. fi 37I7 ,31 C.F.R. g 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. $ 89.23. Pursuant to those same\nauthorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not\nmade within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral\nof the matter to the Attomey General for appropriate action in an United States District Court.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. S 190.215, Respondent has a right to petition for reconsideration of this Final\nOrder. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this Final Order and\nmust contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of a petition automatically stays the\npayment of any civil penalty assessed. All other terms of the order, including any required corrective\naction, remain in full effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon written request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon receipt.\nFailure to comply with this Final Order may result in the assessmenl of civil penalties of up to\n$100,000 per violation per day, or in the referral ofthe case forjudicial enforcement.\nMAR 10 2C05\nSiacey Gerard Date Issue<lAssociate Administrator\nfor Pioeline Safetv","truncated":false,"body_characters":17142}