# TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation

**Citation:** CPF 420161004  
**Type / status:** enforcement / historical  
**Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration  
**Effective:** Not stated  
**Published:** 2016-06-13

CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.481(a), 192.605(a), 192.605(b)(6), 192.613, 192.705(a), 192.705(b), 192.739(a), 192.805(b), 192.805(c), 192.937(b).

## Document text

Notice of Probable Violation involving TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.481(a),  192.605(a),  192.605(b)(6),  192.613,  192.705(a),  192.705(b),  192.739(a),  192.805(b),  192.805(c),  192.937(b). The case was opened on 2016-06-13 and is reported as closed as of 2018-06-11. Proposed civil penalty: $120,500. Assessed civil penalty: $62,900. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

420161004_Final Order_05032018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161004/420161004_Final%20Order_05032018.pdf

420161004_Final Order_05032018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161004/420161004_Final%20Order_05032018_text.pdf

420161004_NOPV PCP PCO_06132016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161004/420161004_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06132016.pdf

420161004_NOPV PCP PCO_06132016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161004/420161004_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06132016_text.pdf

420161004_Operator Post-Hearing Written Submittal_01232017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161004/420161004_Operator%20Post-Hearing%20Written%20Submittal_01232017.pdf

420161004_Operator Pre-Hearing Written Submittal_12052016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161004/420161004_Operator%20Pre-Hearing%20Written%20Submittal_12052016.pdf

420161004_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing and Case Documents_07142016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161004/420161004_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing%20and%20Case%20Documents_07142016.pdf

420161004_Final Order_05032018_text.pdf

May 3, 2018
Mr. Thomas A. Martin
President, Natural Gas Pipeline Group
Kinder Morgan, Inc.
1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF No. 4-2016-1004
Dear Mr. Martin:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $62,900, and finds that the specified actions to be
taken by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc., to comply with
the pipeline safety regulations have been completed. The penalty payment terms are set forth in
the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid, this enforcement action will be closed.
Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing as provided
under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Ms. Jessica Toll, Esq., Assistant General Counsel, Kinder Morgan,
370 Van Gordon Street, Lakewood, CO 80228
Ms. Catherine D. Little, Esq., Hunton & Williams, Bank of America Plaza,
Suite 4100, 600 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30308
Mr. Kenneth W. Grubb, Chief Operating Officer, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company,
1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, TX 77002-5089
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 4-2016-1004
a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc., )
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On multiple occasions between February 26, 2015 and August 20, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
§ 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of
the facilities and records of certain Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (TGP or Respondent)
pipeline assets in Texas and Louisiana. TGP operates approximately 13,900 miles of pipelines
which run from the Gulf of Mexico coast in Texas and Louisiana through Arkansas, Mississippi,
Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and deliver gas to various states in the
Northeastern U.S. El Paso Natural Gas, owned by Kinder Morgan, Inc., is the parent company
of TGP.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated June 13, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49
C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that
TGP had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed assessing a civil penalty
of $120,500 for two of the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to
take certain measures to correct four of the alleged violations. The warning items required no
further action, but warned Respondent to correct the alleged violations or face possible
enforcement action.
TGP responded to the Notice by letter dated July 14, 2016 (Response). TGP contested one of the
allegations, disagreed with the amount of the proposed civil penalties, and requested a hearing. A
hearing was subsequently held on December 14, 2016 in Houston, Texas, with an attorney from
the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. At the hearing, Respondent was represented by
counsel. After the hearing, Respondent provided additional written materials including a post-
hearing statement for the record, by letter dated January 23, 2017 (Closing).
1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (May 15, 2015) (on file with PHMSA), at 1;
https://www.kindermorgan.com/business/gas pipelines/east/TGP (last accessed Dec. 8, 2017).



CPF No. 4-2016-1004
Page 2
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a), which states:
§ 192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.
(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline
that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion,
as follows:
If the
pipeline is
located:
Then the frequency of
inspection is:
Onshore At least once every 3 calendar
years, but with intervals not
exceeding 39 months
Offshore At least once each calendar
year, but with intervals not
exceeding 15 months
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a) by failing to inspect each
pipeline or portion of pipeline exposed to the atmosphere for atmospheric corrosion at least once
every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that TGP’s most recent documented atmospheric inspections on pipelines 100-1, 100-2,
100-3, and 100-4 crossing the Brazos River occurred in January of 2011. Respondent did not
contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I
find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a) by failing to inspect each pipeline or
portion of pipeline exposed to the atmosphere for atmospheric corrosion at least once every 3
calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), which states:
§ 192.605(a) Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a
manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance
activities and for emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual
must also include procedures for handling abnormal operations. This
manual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not
exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. This manual
must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence.
Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where operations
and maintenance activities are conducted.
(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by
paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following, if



CPF No. 4-2016-1004
Page 3
applicable, to provide safety during maintenance and operations.
(1)…
(6) Maintaining compressor stations, including provisions for isolating
units or sections of pipe and for purging before returning to service.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its
written procedures for maintaining the gas detection and alarm equipment at the Cleveland
Compressor Station to ensure proper functioning. Specifically, the Notice alleged that testing of
the high-level gas detection at 30 to 40% lower explosive limit (LEL) observed by the PHMSA
inspector did not trigger operation of the detection system. Respondent did not contest this
allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that
Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its written procedures for
maintaining the gas detection and alarm equipment at the Cleveland Compressor Station to
ensure proper functioning.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.613, which states:
§ 192.613 Continuing surveillance.
(a) Each operator shall have a procedure for continuing surveillance of
its facilities to determine and take appropriate action concerning changes in
class location, failures, leakage history, corrosion, substantial changes in
cathodic protection requirements, and other unusual operating and
maintenance conditions.
(b) If a segment of pipeline is determined to be in unsatisfactory
condition but no immediate hazard exists, the operator shall initiate a
program to recondition or phase out the segment involved, or, if the segment
cannot be reconditioned or phased out, reduce the maximum allowable
operating pressure in accordance with §192.619 (a) and (b).
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.613 by failing to initiate a program
to recondition or phase out certain pipeline segments determined to be in unsatisfactory
condition. Specifically, the Notice alleged that TGP failed to take timely corrective action to
recondition 11 unsatisfactory items identified in Pipeline Bridge Examination Reports dated
January 25 and 27, 2011. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly,
based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.613
by failing to initiate a program to recondition or phase out certain pipeline segments determined
to be in unsatisfactory condition.
Item 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(c), which states:
§ 192.805 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.
The program shall include provisions to:
(a) …
(c) Allow individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this subpart to
perform a covered task if directed and observed by an individual that is
qualified;



CPF No. 4-2016-1004
Page 4
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(c) by failing to follow its task
specific span of control plan and thereby allowing an individual who was not qualified to
perform a covered task to perform that task while not directed and observed by an individual that
was qualified. Specifically, the Notice alleged that on numerous shifts during the September
2014 to March 2015 period, TGP had three consoles staffed by controllers, only one of which
was qualified exceeding the one-to-one span of control ratio. Respondent did not contest this
allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that
Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(c) by failing to follow its task specific span of control
plan and thereby allowing an individual who was not qualified to perform a covered task to
perform that task while not directed and observed by an individual that was qualified.
Item 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.937(b), which states:
§ 192.937 What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to
maintain a pipeline's integrity?
(a) …
(b) Evaluation. An operator must conduct a periodic evaluation as
frequently as needed to assure the integrity of each covered segment. The
periodic evaluation must be based on a data integration and risk assessment
of the entire pipeline as specified in §192.917. For plastic transmission
pipelines, the periodic evaluation is based on the threat analysis specified in
192.917(d). For all other transmission pipelines, the evaluation must
consider the past and present integrity assessment results, data integration
and risk assessment information (§192.917), and decisions about
remediation (§192.933) and additional preventive and mitigative actions
(§192.935). An operator must use the results from this evaluation to identify
the threats specific to each covered segment and the risk represented by
these threats.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.937(b) by failing to conduct
periodic evaluations as frequently as needed to assure the integrity of each covered segment
based on present data integration and risk assessments. Specifically, the Notice alleged that TGP
did not conduct a periodic evaluation or analysis to determine if there was any need for
additional preventive and mitigative measures such as automatic or remote shutoff valves
following the identification of new high consequence areas (HCAs) along its pipelines that
occurred after 2007.
In its Response and at the hearing, TGP contested the allegation, arguing that it complied with
the requirement to conduct a periodic evaluation or analysis to determine if there was any need
for additional preventive and mitigative measures. TGP acknowledged that additional HCA
segments had been newly identified along its pipelines after 2007, but cited § 192.935(c) in
arguing that an evaluation and analysis of the need for remote controlled valves (RCVs) and
automatic shut off valves (ASVs) was a separate “one time” determination and there was no
requirement to update that determination.2 TGP cited the existence of two industry studies and
2 Closing at 3.



CPF No. 4-2016-1004
Page 5
questioned whether RCVs and ASVs could ever be effective for any pipeline segment.3 TGP
also produced a 2014 chart indicating, among other things, which of its segments did and did not
have RCVs and/or ASVs and contended that this chart evidenced an annual review that it
believed satisfied the § 192.937(b) periodic evaluation requirement.4
Analysis
The gas pipeline integrity management regulations establish a risk management framework in
which pipeline operators are required to conduct initial or baseline risk analyses on pipeline
segments that could affect HCAs in the event of a release, and to periodically evaluate the HCA
pipeline segments to maintain their integrity. One element of integrity management is
determining the need for preventative and mitigative measures to ensure that the potential risks
that are present can be appropriately mitigated.5
TGP cited § 192.935(c) in arguing that an evaluation and analysis of the need for RCVs and
ASVs was a separate one time determination and there was no requirement to update that
determination. The issue to be decided is whether this argument can overcome the actual code
language of § 192.937(b). While § 192.935 and ASME/ANSI B31.8S referenced within are
relevant to the type of analysis used for identifying preventive and mitigative measures,
§ 192.937(b) is controlling on the issue of whether it is a one time or periodic requirement. This
regulation states, in relevant part, “An operator must conduct a periodic evaluation as frequently
as needed…”6 Thus, the relevant language expressly makes this a periodic requirement, not a
one-time requirement. In addition, § 192.937(b) references the entirety of § 192.935 with respect
to preventative and mitigative measures, not just subsection (c) on RCVs and ASVs. Under
subsection (a), preventive and mitigative measures also include, “…installing computerized
monitoring and leak detection systems, replacing pipe segments with pipe of heavier wall
thickness, providing additional training to personnel on response procedures, conducting drills
with local emergency responders and implementing additional inspection and maintenance
programs.”7
TGP correctly points out that the integrity management rules reflect the premise that each
operator’s system is different.8 Different pipelines do have different attributes and run through
different geographic areas. However, this is precisely why operators are obligated to conduct a
risk evaluation, including considering the need for preventive and mitigative measures, on a
segment-by-segment basis for every HCA segment. The fact that newly designated covered
3 Id.
4 Pre-Hearing Submittal, Exhibit 4.
5 49 C.F.R. Part 192, Subpart O.
6 49 C.F.R. 192.937(b).
7 49 C.F.R. § 192.935(a). While the need for RCVs and ASVs is part of the required periodic evaluation of the need
for preventative and mitigative measures, the periodic evaluation required by § 192.937(b) is broader than RCVs
and ASVs and the entire preventive and mitigative evaluation applies to newly designated covered segments.
8 Closing at 2.



CPF No. 4-2016-1004
Page 6
segments will need such evaluations under the integrity management rules, a point not in dispute,
is simply incompatible with the one-time approach advocated by TGP in this proceeding.
Thus, all covered segments must have an individualized and full evaluation of the need for
preventative and mitigative measures, including pipe segments that are newly classified as HCA
segments. The regulations do not create an exception under which RCVs and ASVs need not be
part of the evaluation when updating and extending it to newly covered segments. As TGP
correctly noted, however, studies by Kiefner & Associates and Oak Ridge National Laboratory
do cast doubt on the effectiveness of RCVs and ASVs in mitigating the consequences of a typical
gas pipeline rupture.9 It may well be the case that an operator in Respondent’s position is likely
to determine that, like the original HCA segments, the installation of RCVs and/or ASVs would
not provide additional protection in the event of a release on the newly identified HCA segments.
This does not, however, negate the code requirement that the operator undertake the periodic
evaluation for its newly identified and uniquely situated covered pipeline segments. As for the
2014 chart indicating which segments did and did not have RCVs and/or ASVs, an annual
review or update of this chart is not the same thing as conducting an actual risk analysis that
included evaluating the need for preventive and mitigative measures on the newly designated
covered segments like the analysis conducted in 2007 for the initial set of covered segments.
Finally, TGP argued that in alleging this violation, OPS is articulating a “new interpretation” of
§ 192.937(b) that TGP believes is at odds with the Administrative Procedures Act and fair notice
principles.10 TGP’s argument on this point, however, is unpersuasive. Including consideration
of RCVs and/or ASVs as part of a broader periodic evaluation of the need for preventative and
mitigative measures is not an “interpretation” or the creation of a new requirement. It comes
from the direct language of § 192.937(b) of the code which, as noted above, unambiguously
brings in § 192.935 on preventative and mitigative measures in its entirety and does so as a
periodic requirement, not a one-time requirement.
I would emphasize that the determination in this case means only that a broader evaluation of the
need for any preventative and mitigative measures, including but not limited to RCVs and/or
ASVs, is an integral part of the periodic evaluation requirement of § 192.937(b). It does not
presuppose the outcome of such evaluation. In particular, this determination is not intended to
drive TGP or any other operator to install RCVs and/or ASVs where they would not provide
additional protection to a HCA in the event of a release.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that
Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.937(b) by failing to conduct periodic evaluations as
frequently as needed to assure the integrity of each covered segment following the identification
of new HCAs along its pipelines that occurred after 2007.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
9 Closing at 3.
10 Closing at 4.



CPF No. 4-2016-1004
Page 7
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.11 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect
that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of
Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may
consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of
subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total
civil penalty of $120,500 for the violations cited in Items 1 and 7 above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $37,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.481(a). As discussed above, I found that TGP failed to inspect each pipeline or portion of
pipeline exposed to the atmosphere for atmospheric corrosion at least once every 3 calendar
years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months. In its Response and at the hearing,
Respondent did not contest the violation, but disagreed with the amount of the proposed civil
penalty and questioned whether it was supported by the penalty consideration factors in the
Pipeline Safety Act and § 190.225 regulations.
PHMSA’s method of determining the proposed civil penalty for an alleged violation involves the
use of a worksheet that assigns point value from a given range of points for each statutory
penalty assessment factor. The points assignment is based on factual input from the Violation
Report. The OPS regional office provided both of these documents to Respondent prior to the
hearing. PHMSA is bound by the proposed civil penalty amount in the Notice in the sense that
the final penalty I assess cannot be higher than the proposed amount, although it can be reduced
if the operator provides information or arguments showing that a lower gradation of one of the
factors such as gravity or culpability is appropriate.
With respect to the nature and circumstances of TGP’s violation of § 192.481(a), performing
atmospheric corrosion inspections is a basic code requirement and the non-compliance was
discovered by the OPS inspector. With respect to the gravity of the offense, performing timely
atmospheric corrosion inspections is a key part of safety. If surface corrosion begins to occur on
the exposed steel pipe, appropriate remediation and recoating must be completed promptly to
avoid further deterioration and greater threats to pipe integrity. With respect to culpability, there
were no circumstances beyond Respondent’s control (such as flooding) that prevented it from
complying with the regulation and action was not taken to achieve compliance until after the
violation was discovered by OPS. I further find that the record supports the points assigned for
prior offenses and good faith. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the
assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $37,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.481(a).
11 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum
Civil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).



CPF No. 4-2016-1004
Page 8
Item 7: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $83,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.805(c). As discussed above, I found that Respondent failed to follow its task specific span
of control plan and thereby allowing an individual who was not qualified to perform a covered
task to perform that task while not directed and observed by an individual that was qualified. In
its Response and at the hearing, Respondent did not contest the violation, but disagreed with the
amount of the proposed civil penalty and questioned whether it was supported by the penalty
consideration factors in the Pipeline Safety Act and § 190.225 regulations.
With respect to the nature and circumstances of TGP’s violation of § 192.805(c), ensuring that
the performance of covered tasks, particularly pipeline control functions, is properly directed and
observed by a qualified individual is a basic code requirement and the non-compliance was
discovered by the OPS inspector. With respect to the gravity of the offense, OPS assigned a
mid-level point value on the basis that pipeline safety was compromised and a high consequence
area was involved. In its response and at the hearing, TGP explained that pipeline safety was
minimally affected because the configuration of its consoles allowed all three controllers to
monitor the entire pipeline—meaning that the one qualified controller was monitoring the entire
pipeline.12 Respondent further explained that while its one-to-one control ratio was exceeded,
three controllers was more than typical for the system type. Respondent was persuasive that
pipeline safety was minimally affected and I find that a corresponding reduction under the
gravity factor is warranted. With respect to culpability, there were no circumstances beyond
Respondent’s control that prevented it from adhering to its span of control plan, the offense was
ongoing for a period of approximately seven months, and action was not taken to achieve
compliance until after the violation was discovered by OPS. I further find that the record
supports the points assigned for prior offenses and good faith. With respect to other matters as
justice may require, TGP explained that its span of control procedures exceeded the regulatory
requirements. TGP pointed out that the worksheet provided for a penalty reduction in
circumstances where the non-compliance was against the requirements of the procedure that
exceeded the regulation but that this reduction had not been applied.13 Respondent is correct.
Therefore, in addition to the reduction in gravity, I find that a reduction for other matters as
justice may require is warranted. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the
assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $25,900 for violation of
49 C.F.R. § 192.805(c).
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $62,900.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.
The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
12 Closing at 7.
13 Closing at 8.



CPF No. 4-2016-1004
Page 9
Failure to pay the $62,900 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate
in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 3, 4, and 9 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.481(a), 192.605(a), 192.613, and 192.937(b), respectively. Under
49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or
operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established
under chapter 601. The Director indicates that Respondent has taken the following actions
specified in the proposed compliance order:
1. With respect to the violation of § 192.481(a) (Item 1), Respondent completed
atmospheric corrosion inspections for pipelines 100-1, 100-2, 100-3, and 100-4 in
November 2015 and subsequently completed remediating the identified areas.
2. With respect to the violation of § 192.605(a) (Item 3), Respondent completed
inspections of the gas detection and alarm system for the Cleveland Compressor
Station in September 2015 and ensured proper functioning.
3. With respect to the violation of § 192.613 (Item 4), Respondent completed a
program to recondition the 11 unsatisfactory items identified on the specified
segments.
4. With respect to the violation of § 192.937(b) (Item 9), Respondent completed an
evaluation in November 2016 to analyze the need for any additional preventative and
mitigative measures such as automatic or remote shutoff valves following the
identification of new HCAs along its pipelines.
Accordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations.
Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.
WARNING ITEMS
With respect to Items 2, 5, 6, and 8, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did
not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered
to be warning items. The warnings were for:
49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow section
3.1 of its Management of Change procedures for documenting a pressure
reduction taken in connection with a pipeline repair;



CPF No. 4-2016-1004
Page 10
49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b) (Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to conduct
transmission line patrolling within the required interval at the Highway 77
crossing;
49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect the
pressure relief device for Unit No. 6 at the Robstown Station prior to placing it
back in service in January 2014; and
49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b) (Item 8) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to ensure through
evaluation that an employee was qualified to perform a covered task: the annual
relief valve inspection on a segment of pipeline 100-3 in September 2014.
TGP presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to address
the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection,
Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a petition for reconsideration of this Final
Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of
Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this
Final Order by Respondent. Should Respondent elect to submit a petition, it must contain a
statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a
petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The terms and conditions
of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
May 3, 2018
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

420161004_NOPV PCP PCO_06132016_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
June 13, 2016
Mr. Gary Buchler
Vice President, Operations and Engineering
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
1001 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002-5089
CPF 4-2016-1004
Dear Mr. Buchler:
Between February 26, 2015 and August 20, 2015, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601
of 49 United States Code inspected your Tennessee Gas Pipeline system (TGPL/KM) records and
facilities located in Texas and Louisiana.
As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline
Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable
violation(s) are:
1. §192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring
(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the
atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:
If the pipeline is located: Then the frequency of inspection is:
Onshore At least once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals
not exceeding 39 months



TGPL/KM did not inspect portions of pipeline exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric
corrosion at least once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.
During the inspection TGPL/KM was asked to present the documentation of their Atmospheric
Inspections. In the specific instance related to pipelines 100-1, 100-2, 100-3 and 100-4 located over
the Brazos River, TGP/KM provided PHMSA with two reports dated 1/25/2011 and 1/27/2011 both
created by Acuren. No additional documentation was provided. From this information PHMSA
concludes that these pipeline segment’s atmospheric corrosion inspections exceeded the regulatory
interval.
2. §192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies
Each operator shall include the following in its operating and maintenance plan:
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of
written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for
emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual must also include procedures
for handling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the
operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least one each calendar year.
This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence.
Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where operations and
maintenance activities are conducted.
TGPL/KM failed to follow their O&M 155: Management of Change, Revised 2013-09-01, Section 3.1
during the repair operations. §192.713(b) requires operating pressure must be at a safe level during
repair operations.
KM's Procedure O&M 155: Management of Change, Revised 2013-09-01, Section 3.1: When
Management of Change is Needed, states,
"All employees may propose changes. This procedure must be followed for all changes that are
beyond or outside normal condition limits or that modify the existing IMP to ensure that
changes are adequately reviewed.
Examples of changes that may need to be reviewed are:
 Reduction of the MOP of a pipeline due to Pipeline Integrity Assessment results..."
TGPL/KM performed an In-Line inspection on their pipeline 407A-100 between 407A-103 to 407A-
103A on 4/11/2012. One of the non-immediate anomalies was repaired on 8/22/2014 with a
replacement sleeve. When the PHMSA inspector requested Management of Change request for the
reduction of the MOP of a pipeline, TGPL/KM was unable to provide it. TGPL/KM also failed to
provide documentation on the pipeline operating pressure for the day of the repair.
2



3. §192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of
written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for
emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual must also include procedures for
handling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the
operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least one each calendar year. This
manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence. Appropriate
parts of the manual must be kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities
are conducted.
(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this
section must include procedures for the following, if applicable, to provide safety during
maintenance and operations.
(6) Maintaining compressor stations, including provisions for isolating units or sections
of pipe and for purging before returning to service.
TGPL/KM failed to follow their procedure and maintain the gas detection and alarm equipment at the
Cleveland Compressor Station to function properly as required by §192.736(c).
Kinder Morgan Procedure O&M 550: Testing Gas and Fire Detection Systems, section 3.1.2 (Low-
Level Detection in Compressor Buildings) states,
“Set detectors at a low-level set point of no more than 25% LEL (1.25% methane by volume).
Low-level gas detection shall activate and alarm and a callout. The fire and gas detection system
shall remain energized….”
Kinder Morgan Procedure O&M 550: Testing Gas and Fire Detection Systems, section 3.1.3 (High-
Level Detection in Compressor Buildings) states,
“Set detectors at a high-level set point of 30 to 40% LEL (1.5% to 2% methane by volume).
High-level gas detection shall trigger a compressor building blowdown and activate an alarm
and a callout. The fire and gas detection system shall remain energized….”
On July 30, 2015, the PHMSA inspector witnessed the inspection test of gas detectors, 45-HAT-2 &
45-HAT-1 at the Cleveland Compressor Station # 25 building “C”. During the test, the gas detectors
were activated by applying a known concentration of gas in air to the respective sensor. At 20% LEL,
the alarm was activated as per the O&M 550, Section 3.1.2. However, the TGPL/KM employee was
unable to demonstrate to the PHMSA inspector that the test at high level gas detection of 30 to 40%
LEL was operational. The test was repeated three times and it was observed that it was not operational.
3



4. § 192.613 continuing surveillance.
(a) Each operator shall have a procedure for continuing surveillance of its facilities to
determine and take appropriate action concerning changes in class location, failures,
leakage history, corrosion, substantial changes in cathodic protection requirements, and
other unusual operating and maintenance conditions.
(b) If a segment of pipeline is determined to be in unsatisfactory condition but no
immediate hazard exists, the operator shall initiate a program to recondition or phase out
the segment involved, or, if the segment cannot be reconditioned or phased out, reduce
the maximum allowable operating pressure in accordance with § 192.619 (a) and (b).
TGPL/KM did not initiate a program to recondition or phase out the pipeline segment with other
unusual operating and maintenance conditions found during the Brazos River Span Inspection on the
TGPL/KM’s pipelines.
KM O&M 218, Section 3.4: Pipeline in Unsatisfactory Condition states,
“When a pipeline is determined to be in an unsatisfactory condition by inspection or record review,
but no immediate hazard exists, action must be taken to recondition or phase out the segment, or
reduce the maximum allowable operating pressure in conformance with Company procedures”.
TGPL/KM provided the Pipeline Bridge Examination Reports dated January 25 and 27, 2011 which
describe the crossing of natural gas pipelines 100-1, 100-2, 100-3 and 100-4 (cable supported and H
shaped towers) located at 3 miles north east of Wallis, Texas. While reviewing these reports performed
by the pipeline bridge inspection contractor, ACUREN, the PHMSA inspector noted that there are
seven items to be corrected within the next year and additional four items to be corrected within the
next two years. As of August 31, 2015, TGPL/KM failed to create work orders or take corrective
actions to recondition the pipeline segments within the prescribed timeframe.
5. § 192.705 Transmission lines: Patrolling.
(a) Each operator shall have a patrol program to observe surface conditions on and
adjacent to the transmission line right-of-way for indications of leaks, construction
activity, and other factors affecting safety and operation.
(b) The frequency of patrols is determined by the size of the line, the operating pressures,
the class location, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors, but intervals between
patrols may not be longer than prescribed in the following table:
4



Maximum interval between patrols
Class location
of line At highway and railroad crossings At all other places
1, 2 7 1/2 months; but at least twice each
calendar year
15 months; but at least once each
calendar year.
3 4 1/2 months; but at least four times
each calendar year
7 1/2 months; but at least twice each
calendar year.
4 4 1/2 months; but at least four times
each calendar year
4 1/2 months; but at least four times
each calendar year.
During the review of the TGPL/KM patrolling Class I & II @ Railroad/Highway Crossing District 9
records, the PHMSA inspectors found that during the calendar year 2013, TGPL/KM exceeded the
required patrolling interval on one occasion at the Highway 77 crossing. This crossing was patrolled
for leaks on 12/19/2013 and it was not patrolled for leaks again until 9/17/2014.
6. § 192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and testing.
(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs), and pressure
regulating station and its equipment must be subjected at intervals not exceeding 15
months, but at least once each calendar year, to inspections and tests to determine that it
is—
(1) In good mechanical condition;
(2) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service
in which it is employed;
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, set to control or relieve at the
correct pressure consistent with the pressure limits of § 192.201(a); and
(4) Properly installed and protected from dirt, liquids, or other conditions that might
prevent proper operation.
TGPL/KM failed to inspect the relief device which is required to prevent an actual overpressure
situation for Unit # 6 at the Robstown Station to determine that it met the requirement of § 192.739 (a)
-(1), (2), (3) and (4) prior to placing it back in service in January 2014.
During the inspection, TGPL/KM provided records documenting the inspections. The records showed
the inspections as having occurred in September 2012 and September 2014, but no inspections were
documented in the calendar year of 2013 for the Unit # 6 relief valve. Further inquiry revealed that
Unit # 6 relief valve was locked out/tagged out (LOTO) in October 2013 due to broken pistons. It was
placed back in-service in January 2014. However, no documentation was provided indicating this relief
valve was tested in January 2014.
5



7. §192.805 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program shall
include provisions to:
(c) Allow individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this subpart to perform a covered
task if directed and observed by an individual that is qualified;
TGPL/KM allowed individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this subpart to perform a covered task
even though they were not directed and observed by a qualified individual. TGPL/KM did not follow
the task specific span of control ratio for a qualified individual to direct and observe a non-qualified
employee.
The Kinder Morgan OQ Program section 1 Scope, second paragraph states,
“…KM’s OQ Program is designed to ensure that all individuals working on KM’s DOT-
regulated pipeline facilities are OQ-qualified to perform specific covered tasks, to document
that qualification and to reduce the probability and consequences of incidents and accidents…”
Also, KM OQ Program, section 4 Use of Non-OQ Qualified Workers states,
“...The Span of Control (the number of Non-OQ qualified persons a single OQ qualified person
can effectively observe to meet the intent of this Section) is listed in Appendix A: Table of Gas
Covered Tasks and Appendix B: Hazardous Liquids List of Covered Tasks. The OQ qualified
individual can reduce the task span of control depending upon work conditions and complexity
of the task."
The PHMSA inspector reviewed Appendix A: Table of Gas Covered Tasks (revised 7/30/2015) and
learned covered task 27.01.01: Gas Control has span of control of a one to one.
TGPL/KM has three Consoles at the primary control center located in Houston. While reviewing
records associated with the Controllers’ qualifications related to the three Consoles, the PHMSA
inspector observed that of the three controllers, two were not qualified during multiple shifts. This
situation existed beginning September 1, 2014 until March 2015. Having two non-qualified controllers
on shift with only one qualified controller exceeds the stated span of control.
8. §192.805 Qualification program.
(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified;
On the following two occasions, TGPL/KM failed to ensure through evaluation that an employee was
qualified to perform covered tasks. Specifically task 018.01.01: Pressure Regulating, Limiting, &
Relief Device – O&M and 002PIP: Perform Pressure Test.
6



A TGPL/KM employee conducted the annual relief valve inspection on September 16, 2014. The
PHMSA inspector reviewed the qualification record for this individual, and it indicated that his
qualification is not current for this covered task on that day. The individual was not qualified on
covered task, 018.01.01 until January 30, 2015. At the time of the inspection, TGPL/KM failed to
provide documentation indicating the employee was qualified prior to performing the covered task on
September 16, 2014.
If covered task 018.01.01 is performed by a non-qualified individual, TGPL/KM’s OQ Plan requires a
span of control of one to one. According to the annual relief valve inspection report documentation for
the calendar year 2014 provided by TGPL/KM, a qualified employee was not present to observe or
direct this individual at the work site.
The PHMSA inspector reviewed the records for the pressure test conducted on October 14, 2011 on
pipeline 100-3, segment 32-3D to 40-3S (AFE 154482). According to the document reviewed, the test
was witnessed by William Deshotel. When the PHMSA inspector requested the qualification record
for performance of covered task 002PIP, TGPL/KM provided a response via email which states,
“William Deshotel was the field inspector on the project. Mike Lirette is the Chief Inspector and has
the OQ Qualification 002PIP. You will see that Mike Lirette signed off on the submission of all the
pressure test.”
The PHMSA inspector did not find Mike Lirette’s signature on the Test Specification, pressure chart
and temperature chart. As a result, it appears that Mike Lirette was not at the job sire witnessing the
pressure test and a qualified employee was not present to observe or direct William Deshotel at the
work site.
9. §192.937 What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to maintain a pipeline's
integrity?
(b) Evaluation. An operator must conduct a periodic evaluation as frequently as needed
to assure the integrity of each covered segment. The periodic evaluation must be based on
a data integration and risk assessment of the entire pipeline as specified in § 192.917. For
plastic transmission pipelines, the periodic evaluation is based on the threat analysis
specified in § 192.917(d) For all other transmission pipelines, the evaluation must consider
the past and present integrity assessment results, data integration and risk assessment
information (§ 192.917), and decisions about remediation (§ 192.933) and additional
preventive and mitigative actions (§ 192.935). An operator must use the results from this
evaluation to identify the threats specific to each covered segment and the risk represented
by these threats.
TGPL/KM did not conduct periodic evaluations as frequently as needed to assure the integrity of each
covered segment based on present data integration and risk assessments. The periodic evaluations will
help to identify and take additional preventative and mitigative (P&M) measures to reduce or eliminate
the consequences of a pipeline failure in a High Consequence Area (HCA) and enhance public safety.
7



Kinder Morgan’s Integrity Management Program, Section 11: Preventive and Mitigative Measures
(Revised 2013-04-22) states:
“Risk Engineering will conduct a risk analysis to determine whether an automatic shutoff valve
(ASV) or remote control valve (RCV) would be an efficient means of adding protection to a covered
segment in the event of a gas release. The review includes, at a minimum: swiftness of leak
detection speed and pipe shutdown capabilities, the type of gas transported, operating pressure, rate
of potential release, pipeline profile, potential for ignition, and nearest response personnel location.
Risk Engineering, with the assistance of System Design, evaluates the installation feasibility.”
The same section also states, “P&MM evaluations are completed for covered sections in response to
the following events:
 New information providing substantial changes to identified threats or relative risk ranking”
In 2007, El Paso Pipeline Group (EPPG) utilized their risk analysis to identify additional P&M
measures which included study and conclusions related to automatic shut-off valves (ASV) or remote
control valves (RCV). The conclusion of this study was that the application of ASVs or RCVs will not
significantly reduce the damage impact of a pipeline rupture or provide an efficient means of additional
safety. El Paso Corporation, the parent company of TGPL was acquired by Kinder Morgan in May,
2012. El Paso Natural Gas (EPNG) is now owned by Kinder Morgan.
Since 2007, there have been several changes to High Consequence Area (HCA) for example, HCA
boundaries and addition of new HCA. At the time of the inspection, TGPL/KM failed to provide
documentation that indicates TGPL/KM reanalyzed and/or reevaluated the need for RCV and ASV
locations to determine if they would mitigate or enhance public safety in current HCA segment.
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per
violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of violations.
For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per
violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations.
The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in
the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty
of $ 120,500 as follows:
8



Item number PENALTY
1 $ 37,000
7 $ 83,500
Warning Items
With respect to items 2, 5, 6 and 8 and we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents
involved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty
assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these item(s). Failure to do
so may result in additional enforcement action.
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to items 1, 3, 4, and 9 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Tennessee Gas
Pipeline Co (TGPL/KM). Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made
a part of this Notice.
Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in
Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All material
you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you believe that
any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b),
along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the
portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe
the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not
respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the
allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts
as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2016-1004 and for each document you
submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
R. M. Seeley
Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
9



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (TGPL/KM)
a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of
TGPL/KM with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to TGPL/KM failure to inspect for
evidence of atmospheric corrosion of cable-supported overhead pipelines, TGPL/KM
must conduct atmospheric inspection required by §192.481 (a). If atmospheric corrosion
is found during an inspection, TGPL/KM must provide protection against the corrosion
required by §192.479.
In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to TGPL/KM failing to follow
procedure and maintain the gas detection and alarm equipment at Cleveland Compressor
Station, TGPL/KM must follow the procedure O&M 550 and properly inspect the gas
detection and alarm system to function properly as required by §192.736(c).
In regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to TGPL/KM for failing to initiate
a program to recondition or phase out the segment with other unusual operating and
maintenance condition found during Brazos River Span inspection, TGPL/KM must
take corrective action to repair the items found during the contractor inspection report
and recondition the segment.
In regard to Item Number 9 of the Notice pertaining to TGPL/KM for failure to perform
an adequate risk analysis to identify and take additional preventative and mitigative
(P&M) measures to mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure in a High
Consequence Area (HCA) identified post 2007, TGPL/KM must perform study based
on current HCA list to enhance public safety.
TGPL/KM must complete item 1 and 2 within 30 days; item 3 within 90 days; item 4
within 120 days of receipt of the Final Order.
It is requested (not mandated) that TGPL/KM maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total
to R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total
cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and
2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline
infrastructure.
10

## Provenance

- Official: Yes
- Source: <https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420161004>
- Source ID: `phmsa-enforcement`
- SHA-256: `813858a0a4a366c6fbcb75e7c6966d7ed3a1af6457a23ac0ed3a8349078c711d`
- Retrieved: 2026-08-20T04:44:44.458Z
- Exported: 2026-08-22T17:24:39.667Z
- Document slug: `phmsa-enforcement-420161004`

### Source metadata

```json
{
  "cpf": "420161004",
  "operator": "TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY",
  "region": "Southwest",
  "pipelineType": "GAS INTERSTATE ONSHORE",
  "caseStatus": "CLOSED",
  "citedSections": [
    "192.481(a)",
    "192.605(a)",
    "192.605(b)(6)",
    "192.613",
    "192.705(a)",
    "192.705(b)",
    "192.739(a)",
    "192.805(b)",
    "192.805(c)",
    "192.937(b)"
  ],
  "dataAsOf": "08/04/2026 12PM",
  "caseDataAsOf": "2026-08-04",
  "attachmentCount": 7,
  "attachments": [
    {
      "name": "420161004_Final Order_05032018.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161004/420161004_Final%20Order_05032018.pdf",
      "bytes": 3205341,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420161004_Final Order_05032018_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161004/420161004_Final%20Order_05032018_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 160624,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420161004_NOPV PCP PCO_06132016.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161004/420161004_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06132016.pdf",
      "bytes": 328204,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420161004_NOPV PCP PCO_06132016_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161004/420161004_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06132016_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 159360,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420161004_Operator Post-Hearing Written Submittal_01232017.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161004/420161004_Operator%20Post-Hearing%20Written%20Submittal_01232017.pdf",
      "bytes": 533895,
      "category": "case_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420161004_Operator Pre-Hearing Written Submittal_12052016.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161004/420161004_Operator%20Pre-Hearing%20Written%20Submittal_12052016.pdf",
      "bytes": 1282024,
      "category": "case_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420161004_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing and Case Documents_07142016.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161004/420161004_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing%20and%20Case%20Documents_07142016.pdf",
      "bytes": 337317,
      "category": "party_submission"
    }
  ],
  "extractedAgencyDocumentCount": 2,
  "attachmentPolicy": "Official attachment links are retained. Agency-issued documents may also include a verified local PDF and page-level text representation.",
  "jurisdiction": "US",
  "operatorName": "TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY"
}
```