# COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO — Notice of Probable Violation

**Citation:** CPF 520081005  
**Type / status:** enforcement / historical  
**Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration  
**Effective:** Not stated  
**Published:** 2008-03-04

CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.605.

## Document text

Notice of Probable Violation involving COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.605. The case was opened on 2008-03-04 and is reported as closed as of 2012-06-25. Proposed civil penalty: $3,364,000. Assessed civil penalty: $2,335,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

520081005_closure letter_06252012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520081005/520081005_closure%20letter_06252012.pdf

520081005_closure letter_06252012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520081005/520081005_closure%20letter_06252012_text.pdf

520081005_Final Order_11232009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520081005/520081005_Final%20Order_11232009.pdf

520081005_Final Order_11232009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520081005/520081005_Final%20Order_11232009_text.pdf

520081005_NOPV PCP PCO letter_03042008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520081005/520081005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO%20letter_03042008.pdf

520081005_nopv pcp pco letter_03042008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520081005/520081005_nopv%20pcp%20pco%20letter_03042008_text.pdf

520081005_operator request for hearing_04032008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520081005/520081005_operator%20request%20for%20hearing_04032008.pdf

520081005_closure letter_06252012_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
June 25, 2012
Mr. Dwayne Burton
Vice President, Engineering / Operations
El Paso Corporation
1001 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002
Mr. Kenneth Grubb
Vice President of Operations
El Paso Corporation
1001 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF 5-2008-1005
Dear Mr. Burton and Mr. Grubb:
On November 23, 2009, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued to
Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd. (WIC) and operated by Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG),
both being subsidiaries of El Paso Corporation (together or individually, “Respondents”) a Final Order in
the above-referenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment.
Based on our review of the documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil
penalty, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the matters
involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Chris Hoidal,
Director, Western Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry
PHP-500 P. Katchmar

520081005_nopv pcp pco letter_03042008_text.pdf

U. S. Department
of Transportation
Plpelline and
Hmardous Materlalls Safelly
Administration
12300 W Dakota Ave, Suite 110
Lakewood, CO 80228
' ll
XOTlCK OF PROBABLK VlOLATIOX
PROPOSKB ClV11 PENALTY
886I
PROP()SKO COMPLlAXCK O~KR
March 4, 2008
Mr. Thomas P. Morgan
Vice President of Operations,
Western Pipeline Group
Colorado Interstate Gas
2 North Nevada Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Mr. Daniel B. Martin
Senior Vice President of Operations
El Paso Corporation
1001 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002
CPF 5-2008-I005
Gentlemen:
On November 11, 2006, a 36-inch gas transmission pipeline (" Line 124A") owned by Wyoming
Interstate Company, Ltd. ("WIC") and operated by Colorado Interstate Gas Company ("CIG"),
both being subsidiaries of El Paso Corporation (collectively, "El Paso" ), was struck and
ruptured by a bulldozer during the construction of a new pipeline running parallel to Line 124A.
The bulldozer operator, employed by Associated Pipeline, LLC (" Associated" ), was killed in the
ensuing explosion and fire.
The new pipehne was being constructed by Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC ("REX"), as part of
the construction of a new 328-mile interstate gas transmission pipeline running from
Greasewood, Colorado, to the El Paso Cheyenne Hub approximately 15 miles south of



Cheyenne, Wyoming ("REX Project" ). The accident took place on Spread 4 of phase two of the
prospect, approximately ten (10) miles south of Cheyenne, Wyoming, and five (5) miles west of
I-25. A representative of the Pipehne and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
("PHMSA"), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, conducted an investigation into
the cause of the accident During the course of the investigation, appropriate El Paso manuals
and records were reviewed in detail to determine whether all applicable operation and
maintenance procedures were in place, whether they were adequate under 49 C. F. R. Part 192 to
ensure safety, whether they were being followed at the time of the November 11, 2006 accident.
As a result of the investigation, it appears that you have committed the following probable
violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items
inspected and the probable violations are:
$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.
(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.
(3) Making construction records, maps, and operating history available to
appropriate operating personnel.
El Paso failed to establish and follow an adequate written program for making construction
records, maps and operating history available to appropriate operating personnel on Spread 4 of
the REX Project as required by $192 605(b)(3).
During the accident investigation, the PHMSA representative confirmed the following
information during interviews with the contract line locator and the El Paso Area Manager, An
information meeting concerning the upcoming REX construction prospect between the El Paso
Area Manager, two (2) El Paso technicians and the PSI contract line locator was held at El
Paso's Cheyenne Compressor Station on August 1, 2006. At that meeting, El Paso failed to
provide the contract line locator responsible for the temporary marking of its lines with accurate
"as-built" drawings of El Paso's underground facilities. According to PHMSA's investigation
and confirmed by El Paso's Internal Investigation, the alignment sheets produced by REX and
used by PSI at the time of the accident did not show the point of inflection (PI6) where the line
was struck. Accurate drawings, both m hard copy and electronic format, had been produced by
Page 2 of 13



El Paso and were available at the CIG Cheyenne Compressor Station but had not been provided
to PSI
The line locator was given a copy of the REX construction ahgnment sheets on which the
general location of El Paso's lines were depicted. However, the REX alignment sheets also
included a disclaimer as follows
"Mll EPOSTS ARE FOR GRAPHIC PURPOSES AND REFERENCED ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION/
RECLAMATION BAND 0 VL Y MILEPOSTS HAVE NO CORRELATION TO ACTUAL SURVEY STATION NUMBERS
DISCLAIMER
UNIVERSAl. ENSCO, INC MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT THIS SURVEY OR MAP CONTAINS COMPLETE OR
CONCLUSIVE SUBSURFACE INFORMATION CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THESTATE "ONE CALL" SYSTEM
PRIOR TOANYEXCAVATION"
The line locator utilized these alignment sheets to make his personal field notes so he would
know where he had already completed his locating duties. Some of the larger inflection points
of the El Paso hnes are shown on these drawings but all of them are not.
The line locator was not provided with El Paso's maps or other construction documentation that
he needed in order to accurately locate and mark the company's facilities, as required by El
Paso's own procedures. Also, the contract line locator did not request the "as-built" drawings,
maps or other construction documentation. In fact, he made the point to the PHMSA
investigator that had El Paso given him the drawings, he would not have utilized them for
locating their pipelines inasmuch as he had no faith that the El Paso as-builts would accurately
depict the location of pipelines installed so long ago.
$192. 605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies
Each operator shaB. include the following in its operating and maintenance plan:
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and foBow for each pipeBne, a manual
of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for
emergency response. For transmission Bnes, 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.
(1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance with each of
the requirements of this subpart and Subpart M of this part.
Page 3 of 13



(a) Except for pipehnes hsted in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, each
operator of a buried pipeline shall carry out in accordance with this section a
written program to prevent damage to that pipehne by excavation activities. For
the purpose of this section, "excavation activities" include excavation, blasting,
boring, tunnehng, bacMIhng, the removal of above ground structures by either
explosive or mechanical means, and other earth moving operations. An operator
may perform any of the duties r equired by paragraph (b) of this section through
participation in a pubhc service program, such as a "one-calp' system, but such
participation does not relieve the operator of responsibility for compliance with this
section. . .
(c) The damage prevention program required by paragraph (a) of this section must,
at a minimum. . .
(4) If the operator has buried pipehnes in the area of excavation activity, provide
for actual notification of persons who give notice of their intent to excavate of the
type of temporary marking to be provided and how to identify the markings.
El Paso failed to follow its procedures for informing REX and Associated of "the requirements
of the encroachment and crossing policies and procedures. " These procedures are described in
El Paso Corporation, Pipeline Operating Procedures Manual, Revision Date: 9/24/2006, Section
502 Safety and Accident Prevention — Encroachment and Crossings. Specifically, subsection
4(b) of Section 502 of the El Paso manual sets forth procedures for ensuring that excavators are
informed of El Paso's excavation policies. It states:
"b Company Information to Excavators Excavators who give notice of the intent to
excavate, when Company facilities are in the area of excavation activity, shall be
advised, as follows
i Excavations shall not be made on Company's right-of-way except in the presence of a
designated Company field representative The excavator shall be advised as to how and
when the facilities will be marked. ,
ii The designated Company field representative shall inform the excavator of this
procedure "
El Paso failed to follow its procedures for communicating with the excavator as to how and
when El Paso's facilities would be marked, and failed to ensure that all excavation within El
Paso's right-of-way would take place only in the presence of a designated El Paso
representative The contract line locator stated that he was working approximately one and one
half miles to the east of the accident location locating incumbent pipelines at the time of the
rupture.
During the investigation, the PHMSA representative interviewed associated personnel as well as
the REX inspectors overseeing Associated's work. From these interviews, it is apparent that the
REX and Associated personnel interviewed understood that El Paso's lines would be marked
per the modified procedures developed by the contract line locator and not in accordance with
El Paso's written procedures.
Page 4 of 13



(a) General. Each operator shaH prepare and follow for each pipehne, a manual
of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for
emergency I esponse. For transmission hnes, the manual must also include
procedures for handling abnormal operations. Yhis manual must be reviewed and
updated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least one each
calendar year. Yhis manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline
system commence. Appr opriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations
where operations and maintenance activities are conducted.
(b) Maintenance and normal operations. Yhe manual required by paragraph (a)
of this section must include procedures for the following, if applicable, to provide
safety during maintenance and operations.
(1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeHne in accordance with each of
the requirements of this subpart and Subpart M of this part.
$192. 614 Bamage prevention program.
(a) Except for pipehnes hsted in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, each
operator of a buried pipehne shaH ca~ry out in accordance with this section a
written program to prevent damage to that pipehne by excavation activities. For
the purpose of this section, "excavation activities" include excavation, blasting,
boring, tunnehng, backfiHing, the removal of above ground structures by either
explosive or mechanical means, and other earth moving operations. An operator
may perform any of the duties required by paragraph (b) of this section through
participation in a pubHc service program, such as a "one-call" system, but such
participation does not relieve the operator of responsibiHty for compliance with this
section. . .
(c) Yhe damage prevention p~ogram required by paragraph (a) of this section must,
at a mmHHum. . .
(4) If the operator has buried pipelines in the area of excavation activity, provide
for actual notification of persons who give notice of their intent to excavate of the
type of temporary marking to be provided and how to identify the markings.
El Paso's written procedure, "Pipeline Operating Procedures Manual, Revision Date: 9/24/2006,
Section 502 Safety and Accident Prevention — Encroachment and Crossings, Subsection 6—
Excavation Requirements, subsection f — Crossing and Encroachment Inspection, " sets forth the
company's requirement that each company location develop critena and processes for
inspecting and evaluating the locating and marking of its hnes by El Paso personnel and require
close contact with excavators. Subsection 6 states:
Page 5 of 13



"6 Excavation Requirements . .
f Crossing and Encroachment Inspection
Each location shall develop criteria to establish inspections required to maintain the
integrity of the pipeline .
Items to consider during an inspection shall include
Crossing Agreements/Approved Drawings
ii Type and duration of excavation involved
iii Proximity to pipeline facilities
iv Type of excavating equipment involved
"
vii Past experience with the excavator involved .
Field contact with the excavator shall be maintained during the excavation to avoid
potential problems and to promptly correct any problems that arise "
El Paso failed to develop appropriate criteria for surveillance inspections required to maintain
the integrity of its pipeline for Spread 4 of the REX Project. Specifically, El Paso failed to
develop project — specific criteria appropriate for the conditions involved in the REX Project,
considering the factors listed in Subsection 6(f) of Section 502.
$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. Fox transmission hnes, the manual must also include
procedures for handhng 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.
(1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance with each of
the requirements of this subpart and Subpart M of thiis part.
$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.
El Paso's written procedure, "Pipeline Operating Procedures Manual, Revision Date: 9/24/2006,
Section 502 Safety and Accident Prevention — Encroachment and Crossings, Subsection 4—
Page 6 of 13



Operator Responsibilities, " sets forth the company's procedures for determining the proper level
of surveillance and monitoring of construction activity and marking of lines. It states:
"4 Operator Responsibilities The Area Manager shall ensure that persons vvho are
engaged in excavation activities near Company pipeline facilities are informed of the
requirements of the encroachment and crossing policies and procedures Field
Supervision shall be responsible and manage locating the pipeline(s) as necessary and
shall determine the level of monitoring for the protect~on and safety of the pipeline
El Paso's Area Manager failed to determine the proper level of monitoring that was needed to
protect the company's pipeline and excavation personnel. During the PHMSA investigator's
interview, the Area Manager stated that he instructed the PSI contract line locator, who had been
through El Paso's own operator qualification program, to rely upon his own personal
knowledge, experience, and visual indications on the ground to determine when he needed to
use his electronic pipeline locator to actually locate the pipeline and how frequently to mark the
line. Even though El Paso personnel stated that they qualified the contract line locator to
perform the covered task of locating El Paso's incumbent pipelines, the locator failed to locate
and mark three points of inflection (PI5, PI6, and PI7) where Line 124A deviated from its
normally straight course. It was at one of these points of inflection (PI6) where the accident
occurred and the bull dozer operator was killed.
Further, during the interview with the El Paso Area Manager, it became apparent that he was not
aware that the contract locator had taken it upon himself to create his own procedures for
locating and marking El Paso's incumbent pipelines. These procedures were inconsistent with
El Paso's detailed procedures.
$192. 605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies
Each operator shall include the foBowing 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 operato~ 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.
(1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance with each of
the requirements of this subpart and Subpart M of this part.
Page 7 of 13



(a) Except for pipehnes hsted in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, each
operator of a buried pipeline shall carry out in accordance wltll tllls sectioii a
written program to prevent damage to that pipehne by excavation activities. For
the purpose of this sectjion, "excavation activities" include excavation, blasting,
boring, tunnehng, backfilhng, the removal of above ground structures by either
explosive or mechanical means, and othe~ earth moving operations. An operator
may perform any of the duties required by paragraph (b) of this section through
participation in a pubhc service program, such as a "one-caH" system, but such
participation does not reheve the operator of responsibihty for comphance with this
section. . .
(c) The damage prevention program required by paragraph (a) of this section must,
at a minimum. . .
(5) Provide for temporary marking of buried pipelines in the area of excavation
activity before, as far as practical, the activity begins.
El Paso failed to follow the procedures in Section 304, Subsection 7, of its written damage
prevention program during the construction activity associated with Spread 4 of the REX
Project by (1) failing to use an electronic hne locator to identify the actual location of Line
124A, (2) faihng to verify the exact lengths and segments of pipeline to be marked, (3) failing to
deteiTnine where to place proper signs or stakes, (4) failing to place new temporary markers
over the line, and, most importantly, (5) failing to place markers at intervals "wherever
necessary to identify the location of the pipeline to reduce the possibility of damage or
interference. "
El Paso's written procedure, "Pipeline Operating Procedures Manual, Revision Date. 9/24/2006,
Section 304, Pipeline, Locating and Marking; Subsection 7, " states:
"b Subsection 7 "PROCEDURE
71 Upon arriving at the work site, verify the exact length and segment of pipeline to be
marked
7 2 Determine where to place signs, flags or stakes. .
7 4 Use the pipe locator to locate the underground pipeline(s)
7. 5 Use a post driver or hammer to place wooden stakes, steel posts or fiberglass
markers directly above the pipeline(s) at an appropriate depth (so as not to hit the
pipe)
78 Marking Buried Pipelines Except as provided in the 'Exceptions for buried
pzpelines' in this sectzon, a pipelzne warnz'ng marker must be placed and maintazned as
close as practical over each buried pzpeline
7 8 2 wherever necessary to identify the location of the pipeline to reduce the possibility
of damage or interference "
The PHMSA investigator arrived at the rupture location just after the natural gas fire from the
release went out. No temporary pipeline markers were visible in the area between the
Page 8 of 13



permanent marker at the dirt road to the west of the rupture and the permanent line marker in the
fence line to the east of the rupture. The temporary markers normally utilized by the contract
line locator were standard yellow flags on metal wires. Even after the fire, the metal wires
would have remained had the temporary markers been installed.
During the initial interview with the contract line locator that occurred on the evening of the day
of the rupture, the contract line locator stated that he had been through the area where the
rupture occurred on 11/7/2006. He stated that he remembered that he had located the line twice
between the two permanent markers but he could not remember exactly where. Because of the
statements made by the contract locator and because there was no evidence that temporary
markers were installed in the area between the permanent markers, the PHMSA investigator
deduced that the contract line locator thought the WIC line was parallel to the new construction
right-of-way. Per the contract locator's modified line locating procedures, he apparently
believed that he didn't need to use his electronic locator to continuously locate the line between
the two permanent line markers.
$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 handhng abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and
updated by the operato~ at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least one each
calenda~ 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.
(1) Operating, maintaining, and repainng the pipehne in accordance with each of
the requirements of this subpart and Subpart M of this part.
(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.
El Paso's written procedure, "Pipeline Operating Procedures Manual, Revision Date: 9/24/2006,
Section 502 Safety and Accident Prevention — Encroachment and Crossings, " sets forth
procedures to require all marking jobs to be evaluated based upon the criteria set forth above.
Subsection 6(f) states:
Page 9 of 13



"Based on criteria developed, each markinggob shall be evaluated, and where appropriate,
an inspection schedule shall be established for an excavation project . A record of the
inspections shaII be maintained "
El Paso failed to evaluate each marking job performed by PSI in accordance with the
company's inspection criteria and to maintain records of all such inspections. PHMSA's
investigation did not reveal any documentation of evaluations of "marking jobs" by the
contract line locator for the duration of the REX construction on Spread 4.
(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 manu. al required by paragraph (a)
of this section must include pxocedures for the foHowing, if apphcable, to provide
safety during maintenance and operations.
(1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeHne in accordance with each of
the requirements of this subpart and Subpart M of this part.
(a) Each operator shaH have a procedure for continuing surveHlance of its facihties
to determine and take appropriate action concermng changes in class location,
failures, leakage history, corrosion, substantial changes in cathodic protection
requirements, and other unusual operating and maintenance conditions.
El Paso failed to take "appropriate action" as required by (192. 613, to deal with unusual
operating conditions involving construction of the REX Project. Beginning as early as
August 3, 2006 and continuing until the rupture on November 11, 2006, there were recurring
encroachments of El Paso's right-of-way by REX's construction crew. According to the line
locator's weekly reports there were at least 12 incidents between August 3, 2006, and the date
of the failure where the contract line locator had identified unauthorized encroachments by
Associated onto El Paso's right-of-way. In each instance, the contract line locator had required
the contractor to stay off the right-of-way or stop work until the hne could be marked. The El
Paso Area Manager stated that he received the contract line locator's daily reports in a weekly
Page 10 of 13



e-mail Therefore, he was aware of the repeated unauthorized encroachments over El Paso's
pipelines but failed to take appropriate action to reduce confusion, improve coordination, and
protect persons working in the vicinity of such unusual operating conditions,
Each operator shaH include the following in its operating and maintenance plan:
(a) General. Each operator shaH prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of
written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for
emergency response. For transmission hnes, 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 pipeHne
system commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations
where operations and maintenance activities are conducted.
(c) Abnormal operation. For transmission lines, the manual required by
paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to provide
safety when operating design limits have been exceeded:
(I) Responding to, investigating, and cojrrecting the cause of:
(v) Any other fojreseeable malfunction of a component, deviation from normal
operation, or personnel error which may result in a hazard to persons or property.
El Paso failed to establish and follow procedures for internal compliance to ensure that its
personnel were adhering to the company's policies and procedures to respond to abnormal
operations, specifically deviation from normal operation and personnel error to prevent
excavation damage to the company's facilities El Paso's Area Manager had knowledge of
repeated encroachments onto their facihties by REX contractors on Spread 4 of the project.
However, at no time did the Area Manager respond to, investigate, or correct the cause of the
repeated encroachments.
Pro osed Civil Penalt
Under 49 United States Code, $ 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100, 000
for each violation for each day the violations persists up to a maximum of $1, 000, 000 for any
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 $3, 364, 000 as follows;
Item number ~Penalt
$100, 000 $35, 000
$100, 000
$1, 000, 000
Page 11 of 13



Item number ~Penalt
$100, 000
$1, 000, 000
$1, 000, 000
S 29, 000
Pro osed Cpm hance Order
With respect to items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 pursuant to 49 United States Code ) 60118, the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order
to El Paso Corporation. Please refer to the Proposed Comphance Order, which is enclosed and
made a part of this Notice.
Res onse 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. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is
subject to being 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 quahfy 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 CPP 5-2008-l005 and for each document
you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Chris Hoidal
Director, Western Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosure Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
cc: PHP-60 Comphance Registry
PHP-500 P, Katchmar (0118311)
Page 12 of 13



Pursuant to 49 United States Code $ 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to El Paso a Compliance Order incorporating the
following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of El Paso with the pipeline safety
regulations:
1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to El Paso's procedures for making
construction records, maps, and operating history available to appropriate operating
personnel, El Paso must revise their current procedures to specify that every person
required to locate any buried or otherwise not visible structure owned and/or operated by
any El Paso company must be provided the most up — to — date copy of the "as-built"
drawing of each structure that is in the vicinity of the proposed excavation. These
revised procedures must specify the person responsible for compliance with each
revision to the procedures.
2. In regard to items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Notice, El Paso must establish and follow
written procedures for Area Managers or any other responsible manager or supervisor to
periodically review the work done by every person required to locate any buried or
otherwise not visible structure owned and/or operated by any El Paso company to ensure
applicable procedures are understood, are being followed, and are effective. For short
term projects of less than one (1) week duration or in the case of a discreet project, such
as a project confined to one or two city lots, the interval established can be one time per
year not to exceed 15 months for each person. The interval for this periodic review must
be established before each project begins and shall be conducted at the established
interval throughout each project to ensure compliance. The interval shall be selected
based on the life of the prospect but El Paso must ensure the interval estabhshed does not
portend a review of less than three (3) times per project. Each review must be
specifically and severally documented and kept for review by internal as well as external
inspectors.
If, during a periodic review, it is determined that a person is not following a procedure,
immediate written notification to PHMSA will be made detailing the specific
circumstances surrounding the particular mstance as well as El Paso's response to the
instance.
3, In regard to item 7 of the Notice, El Paso shall establish an internal procedural review
for all managers and supervisors so they will better understand El Paso's Continuing
Surveillance procedures. The procedures established shall be designed so all managers
and supervisors will better understand and be able to intervene and thereby stop
impendmg situations which may result in a hazard to persons or property.
4. In regard to item 8 of the Notice, El Paso shall establish and document a training and
evaluation program for their managerial and supervisory staff that includes possible and
actual scenarios where an emergency situation could have been avoided if someone had
stopped recurring abnormal behavior with respect to normal pipeline conditions.
El Paso shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling
this Compliance Order and submit the total to Director, Western Region, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Costs shall 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.
Page 13 of 13

520081005_Final Order_11232009_text.pdf

NOV 23 2009
Mr. Thomas P. Morgan
Vice President of Operations, Western Pipeline Group
Colorado Interstate Gas Company
2 North Nevada Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Mr. Daniel B. Martin
Senior Vice President of Operations
El Paso Corporation
1001 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF No. 5-2008-1005
Dear Sirs:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws two allegations
of violation, makes findings of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $2,335,000, and specifies
actions that need to be taken by Colorado Interstate Gas Company to comply with the Federal
pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When
the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the Compliance Order completed, as determined
by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of the
Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Patrick F. Carey, P.E., Director, D.O.T. Compliance Services
El Paso Corporation, 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, TX 77002
Elizabeth B. Herdes, Esq., Managing Senior Counsel
El Paso Western Pipelines, 2 North Nevada Avenue, Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Mr. Chris Hoidal
Director, Western Region, PHMSA
CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 0390 0005 6162 5067]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Colorado Interstate Gas Company ) CPF No. 5-2008-1005
And El Paso Corporation, )
)
)
)
Respondents. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On November 11, 2006, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) initiated
an investigation of the November 11, 2006 accident in Laramie County, Wyoming involving a
36-inch gas pipeline owned by Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd. (WIC) and operated by
Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG), both being subsidiaries of El Paso Corporation
(together or individually,
“Respondents”). The WIC pipeline system consists of approximately
600 miles of pipeline extending from Western Wyoming to various pipeline interconnections
near Cheyenne, Wyoming. The WIC pipeline was struck and ruptured by a bulldozer operator
employed by Associated Pipeline, LLC during construction of the new Rockies Express Pipeline.
The bulldozer operator was killed in the ensuing explosion and fire.
As a result of the investigation, the Director, Western Region, OPS (“Director”), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated March 4, 2008, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (“Notice”). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207,
the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had committed violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and
proposed assessing a total civil penalty of $3,364,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also
proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated April 3, 2008, as supplemented by
submissions dated September 25 and 30, and October 1, 2008 (collectively, “Response”). In its
Response, Respondent expressed its intent to contest the allegations, the proposed penalty, and
the proposed compliance order and requested a hearing. An informal hearing was held on
October 7, 2008 in Lakewood, Colorado, with Larry White, Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel,
PHMSA, presiding at which Respondent was represented by counsel. After the hearing,
Respondent provided additional information and materials for the record on October 13 and
November 13, 2008.



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. § 192.605, which states in
relevant part:
§ 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 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 applicable, to provide
safety during maintenance and operations.
* * *
(3) Making construction records, maps, and operating history available to
appropriate operating personnel.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to establish a written program that
included procedures for making construction maps and records available to appropriate operating
personnel.
In its Response and at the hearing, Respondent explained that it did have written procedures for
making construction maps and records available to appropriate operating personnel and that this
procedure was in place at the time. Respondent provided a copy of this procedure. This
procedure states that “personnel expected to respond to emergencies and/or maintain the integrity
of the pipeline system must be aware of and be able to retrieve construction records, maps,
manuals and operating histories.”1
OPS proceeded to argue that even if Respondent had an adequate procedure, Respondent did not
follow the procedure because it provided inaccurate maps to the line locator. It is undisputed in
the record that although Respondent had accurate maps of its facilities, it did not provide these
materials to the line locator. Instead, Respondent provided copies of Rockies Express Pipeline’s
1 Respondent initially questioned whether an independent contractor hired by an operator was covered by the term
“appropriate operating personnel” but conceded this point at the hearing.



3
(REX) alignment sheets to the line locator. These documents were marked with a disclaimer as
to their accuracy and it is undisputed that the REX alignment sheets contained inaccurate
reflect a bend in the pipeline. For the regulatory requirement to be meaningful the information
provided must be accurate to accomplish the purpose of protecting the pipeline. The operator is
in the best position to provide a line locator with accurate information about its own lines when it
has accurate maps and records in its possession. In this case, Respondent tasked the line locator
with the critical job of accurately locating the 124A pipeline, yet provided him with unverified
maps created by another company.
information about the location of Respondent’s facilities.2 The REX alignment sheets did not
Respondent further argued that it met its responsibility and followed its procedure because the
accurate maps were “available” to the line locator, but the line locator consciously decided not to
use them. However, no direct testimony from the line locator was provided for the record on this
point. Respondent further contended that even if the accurate maps had been handed to the line
locator, he would not have used them because he stated in an interview that even the most
accurate maps would only “get him into the neighborhood” and the use of equipment was what
physically located the line. Respondent, however, was unpersuasive on this point. Line locators
use a combination of maps, locating tools and other information to physically locate a line and
OPS never suggested that they rely exclusive on maps. Moreover, the record shows that the line
locator did use the inaccurate REX alignment sheets as a general guide to his marking activities.3
Had Respondent provided the line locator with its own accurate maps of the area, rather than
inaccurate REX maps, the line locator may well have identified the bend in the pipeline that
needed to be marked.
To achieve meaningful compliance with the regulatory requirement, operators must do more than
make their personnel “aware of” and “be able to retrieve” records, maps and operating history.
They must actually “make available” this information and the word “available” means present
and ready for use; at hand; and accessible.4 In this case, Respondent acknowledged that it
informed the line locator that its maps and records were located at the Cheyenne Station, miles
away from much of his work area in the time period before the November 2006 incident. Unless
information is at hand and does not require significant travel to obtain, however, it is not actually
“available,” as that term is understood in the context of field work.
located approximately 10 miles from the site of the November 2006 incident. Accordingly, I
find that Respondent’s written procedure that would have allowed a practice where personnel
would have to travel several miles to retrieve an accurate map to properly locate a pipeline did
not meet the regulatory requirement.
5 The Cheyenne Station is
2 Violation Report, exhibit 3 to OPS Failure Investigation Report, EPC Memorandum at 11.
3 Violation Report Exhibit, OPS Notes from Interview of Gary Brack, 12/19/2006.
4 American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Ed., 2006. During the hearing, OPS also cited PHMSA Advisory Bulletin
(ADB-02-03), which recommends that pipeline location mapping information “be readily available to appropriate
personnel.”
5 See In the Matter of Williams-Transco, CPF No. 1-2005-1007, Final Order (Jul. 20, 2007).



4
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.605 by failing to have and follow required written procedures for making construction
maps and records available to appropriate personnel.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, which states in
relevant part:
§ 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 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 applicable, to provide
safety during maintenance and operations.
(1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance with each
of the requirements of this subpart and subpart M of this part.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to follow the procedures for notifying
excavators about its locating and marking practices required by 49 C.F.R. § 192.614.
Respondent did not contest this alleged violation. Accordingly, after considering all of the
evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605 by failing to follow its procedures
for notifying excavators about its locating and marking practices.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, which states in
relevant part:
§ 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 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.



5
(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.
(1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance with each
of the requirements of this subpart and subpart M of this part.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to follow its procedures for developing
criteria for surveillance inspections at each location in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 192.614.
Respondent did not contest this alleged violation. Accordingly, after considering all of the
evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605 by failing to follow its procedures
for developing criteria for surveillance inspections at each location.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, which states in
relevant part:
§ 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 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 applicable, to provide
safety during maintenance and operations.
(1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance with each
of the requirements of this subpart and subpart M of this part.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to follow its procedures for the Area
Manager to conduct oversight of its contract line locator in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 192.613.
Respondent did not contest this alleged violation. Accordingly, after considering all of the
evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605 by failing to follow its procedures
for the Area Manager to conduct oversight of its contract line locator.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, which states in
relevant part:



6
§ 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 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 applicable, to provide
safety during maintenance and operations.
(1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance with each
of the requirements of this subpart and subpart M of this part.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to follow its procedures for locating the
line and placing stakes or other markers where necessary to identify the location of the pipeline
in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 192.614.
Respondent did not contest this alleged violation. Accordingly, after considering all of the
evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605 by failing to follow its procedures
for locating the line and placing stakes or other markers where necessary to identify the location
of the pipeline.
Item 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, which states in
relevant part:
§ 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 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 applicable, to provide
safety during maintenance and operations.
(1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance with each
of the requirements of this subpart and subpart M of this part.



7
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to follow its procedures for performing
documented evaluations of marking jobs performed by its contract line locator in accordance
with 49 C.F.R. § 192.613.
In its Response and at the hearing, Respondent contended that OPS had taken this procedure out
of context and that it actually applied to follow-up evaluations of each pipe exposure, not
evaluations of construction marking jobs. The relevant language in Respondent’s procedure
stated that “If the company pipeline is exposed, specified backfill and procedures shall be used
and the coating shall be inspected.” The list that followed included various items to be
considered during an inspection of exposed pipe. Therefore, Respondent was persuasive on this
point. I find that because Respondent’s follow-up evaluations of exposed pipe were not the
issue, withdrawal of this Item is warranted. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I
withdraw the allegation that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605 by failing to follow its
procedures for performing documented evaluations of marking jobs performed by its contract
line locator.
Item 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, which states in
relevant part:
§ 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 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 applicable, to provide
safety during maintenance and operations.
(1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance with each
of the requirements of this subpart and subpart M of this part.
§ 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.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to have and follow procedures for taking
appropriate action to address unusual operating conditions (repeated encroachments) in
accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 192.613.



8
In its response and at the hearing, Respondent questioned whether the procedures required by
§ 192.613 for taking action to correct unusual operating conditions applied to encroachments
associated with a parallel construction project and contended that encroachments were of a
different nature than the other conditions listed. Respondent, however, was not persuasive on
this point. Construction demands a heightened need for surveillance and appropriate action.
“Other unusual maintenance and operating conditions” is a catch-all term that captures
conditions not otherwise enumerated in § 192.613 and reflects that there are a variety of
conditions that could occur on or near pipeline facilities that could cause harm. Respondent’s
operation of a gas pipeline immediately adjacent to an area with extensive ongoing construction
activity is reasonably a kind of other “unusual condition” for which Respondent must take
appropriation action. In addition, Respondent’s own procedures for compliance with § 192.613
negate the argument that encroachments were of a different nature than the other conditions
listed as implicating surveillance requirements. These procedures state that “surveillance is
[among other things] awareness of: Conditions on and adjacent to pipeline rights-of-way;
construction activity and movement of heavy equipment near facilities; encroachments, and other
factors which might affect operations of the pipeline system or result in possible injury or
damage to people or property.” The construction of a pipeline adjacent to Respondent’s right-of-
way implicates all of these aspects of Respondent’s surveillance procedures.
Respondent further argued that it was not required to take corrective action in the absence of
“actual knowledge” of the repeated encroachments and asserted that it did not have actual
knowledge of these encroachments. In support of its argument, Respondent produced weekly
reports along with the transmittal e-mails and contended that nothing in these e-mails or the
reports themselves highlighted an ongoing or repeated issue with encroachments. It is
undisputed in the record, however, that there were at least twelve documented instances of
encroachments by REX.6
It is undisputed that the line locator was aware of multiple
encroachments onto the 124A right-of-way. OPS argued that the weekly reports did
communicate these incidents to Respondent’s Area Manager. While the reports, entitled
“Weekly Progress – Inspection of REX Encroachments” could have better highlighted the
incidents, poor descriptions or an inadequate level of detail by Respondent’s contractor in its
reports to Respondent’s manager does not absolve Respondent of its responsibility to conduct
continuing surveillance and take action where necessary. In addition, Respondent otherwise
acknowledged that its Area Manager was aware of encroachment issues. OPS noted a
March 9, 2007 Summary of Findings provided by Respondent stating that the Area Manager had
“several discussions during the project” with REX personnel to try to resolve encroachment
issues.
7
Accordingly, I find that Respondent was or should have been sufficiently aware of an
unusual operating condition to take corrective action to satisfy the regulatory requirement.
Respondent did not take the kinds of systemic corrective actions needed to fully address the
repeated encroachments, such as changing from the REX survey maps to Respondent’s
alignment sheets or increasing oversight of the line locator.
6 El Paso’s own internal investigation confirmed that there had been “repeated encroachments pointing to a
systemic failure of the REX survey and the marking process.” November 13, 2008 Response at 6.
7 OPS Violation Report, exhibits. OPS also expressed its view that there is no requirement for actual knowledge in
§§ 192.605 or 192.613.



9
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.605 by failing to follow its procedures for taking appropriate action to address the repeated
encroachments.
Item 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, which states in
relevant part:
§ 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 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.
* * *
(c) Abnormal operation. For transmission lines, the manual required by
paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to provide
safety when operating design limits have been exceeded:
(1) Responding to, investigating, and correcting the cause of:
* * *
(v) Any other foreseeable malfunction of a component, deviation from normal
operation, or personnel error, which may result in a hazard to persons or property.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to establish and follow procedures for
correcting abnormal operating conditions (repeated encroachments).
In its Response and at the hearing, Respondent argued, among other things, that the term
“abnormal operation” as used in the cited regulation is a term of art used to describe situations in
which pipeline facility design limits have been exceeded, and was not applicable to excavation
damage. Notably, the introductory text of this regulation states that correcting the kinds of
situations exemplified in the list is required “when operating design limits have been exceeded.”
Therefore, Respondent was persuasive on this point. I find that because exceeding facility
design limits was not the issue, withdrawal of this Item is warranted. Accordingly, after
considering all of the evidence, I withdraw the allegation that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.605 by failing to follow procedures for correcting repeated encroachments.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.



10
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations.
49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil
penalty, I 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; the Respondent’s ability to pay the penalty 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.
In its Response and at the hearing, Respondent initially argued that under the statutory penalty
caps for administrative pipeline enforcement cases, the civil penalties for violations involving the
same subject matter arising from an accident investigation could not exceed $1,000,000 in total
regardless of whether the case involved a number of violations none of which individually
exceeded $1,000,000. Respondent argued in the alternative that even if the overall case could
exceed $1,000,000 in civil penalties, Items 4, 6 and 7 were so closely related that the civil
penalties assessed for these three items in combination could not exceed $1,000,000. Since these
three items had a proposed amount of $1,000,000 each, Respondent’s alternative argument
would result in the total civil penalty amount being reduced from the $3,364,000 proposed in the
argument by analyzing the extent to which each item is related to another item or items to an
Notice to $1,364,000.8 I will discuss the initial argument, and then discuss the alternative
extent that would invoke the statutory cap.
With respect to Respondent’s initial argument that the civil penalties in a case arising from a
single accident can not exceed $1,000,000 in total regardless of the number of violations,
Respondent noted that administrative civil penalty assessments by PHMSA are limited by the
following provision of 49 U.S.C. 60122:
(a) General penalties.--(1) A person that the Secretary of Transportation decides,
after written notice and an opportunity for a hearing, has violated section
60114(b), 60114(d), or 60118(a) of this title or a regulation prescribed or order
issued under this chapter is liable to the United States Government for a civil
penalty of not more than $100,000 for each violation. A separate violation occurs
for each day the violation continues. The maximum civil penalty under this
paragraph for a related series of violations is $1,000,000.
Citing U.S. v. Chrysler Corporation,
9
Respondent contended that the phrase “related series of
8 Respondent also questioned whether the appropriate penalty should be $1,133,000 reflecting 1/3 of the
responsibility given the involvement of two other companies, or $1,200,000 which it asserted would reflect the
penalty policy of the U.S. Department of Justice.
9 16 F.Supp 2d 25 (U.S. Dist. Ct. DC, 1998). This case involved a U.S. Code section applicable to automobiles,
not a Chapter 601 pipeline statute.



11
violations” in the last sentence, which PHMSA has interpreted to mean a series of daily
violations in light of the preceding sentence, could also be read to effectively cap all cases at
$1,000,000 because the violations can be considered related by their involving the same subject
matter as part of the same accident investigation.
In the absence of legislative history, I will interpret this provision in light of the purposes of the
federal pipeline safety laws. First, such a reading would effectively limit the number of
violations that PHMSA could assess penalties on in cases where each violation had sufficient
seriousness to hit the daily cap. For example, under PHMSA’s reading, a case involving three
unrelated violations (i.e., different evidentiary elements) each of which was serious enough to
implicate the $100,000 per day cap and each of which continued for at least 10 days would result
in a total case of $3,000,000. Respondent’s suggested reading that PHMSA is capped at
$1,000,000 assumes that violations involving the same subject matter are related and amounts to
the proposition that PHMSA would have to discard the penalties associated with two of the three
violations in the example. We believe this is an incorrect reading of our authority. Nothing in
this statute prohibits PHMSA from assessing total civil penalties of over $1,000,000 in a case as
long as the violations are separate. The statute limits an individual violation to $100,000 per day
up to $1,000,000 if that individual violation continued for a series of days, the number of which
multiplied by the per-day amount would otherwise exceed $1,000,000. Therefore, Respondent’s
proposed reading is contrary to the plain language of the statute.
Turning to the question of what constitutes separate violations, Respondent contended that the
violations in this case all involved the same subject—pipeline locating and marking
requirements—and should be seen as a continuous event resulting in the accident. However, this
approach is inconsistent with the structure of the regulatory requirements. In exercising its
rulemaking authority delegated by Congress in its organic statute, a regulatory agency often
establishes numerous different regulatory requirements in the same subject matter area.10
I am
not aware of any court decision or other authority that would force an agency to enforce only one
requirement because citing more than one would make separate requirements “related” simply
because they involve the same subject matter. In the case of the pipeline safety regulations,
because each pipeline system is unique the regulations allow the operator to develop written
procedures tailored to its system, but each section of those procedures is enforceable by PHMSA
in the same manner as a code section. If PHMSA were unable to hold operators accountable for
following all of their procedures in a given subject area of the manual because they were in some
sense related, public safety would suffer and the intent of Congress in enacting the pipeline
safety laws would be frustrated.11
For the reasons discussed above, Respondent’s argument that
the total civil penalties in this case can not exceed $1,000,000 is unpersuasive.
10 The Code of Federal Regulations is organized into Parts, Subparts, and other subdivisions which often involve a
single subject area.
11 See, e.g., United States v. American Airlines, Inc., 739 F. Supp. 52 (D. Mass. 1990). The court concluded that
each individual suitcase that went uninspected was a separate violation and assessed the maximum civil penalty of
$1,000 for each suitcase. The court rejected the airline’s argument that all uninspected suitcases on a flight should
be considered to constitute only one violation because they were all transported on a single flight. The court
reasoned that assessing the penalty on the basis of only one penalty for each flight would result in a civil penalty so
low that it would frustrate Congress’ intent in promulgating federal safety regulations and would not deter the airline
from committing the violation again. Similarly, Congress intended PHMSA’s penalty levels to provide deterrence
to multi-million dollar oil and gas pipeline companies.



12
Respondent’s alternative argument is that a subset of three items in the case (Items 4, 6 and 7)
are related and the civil penalty for them collectively cannot exceed $1,000,000. First, I note
that the issue of separate regulatory violations can be informed by the analogy to separate
offenses under well established principals of criminal law. In Blockburger v. United States, the
U.S. Supreme Court held that “Where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two
distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or
only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does
not.” 284 U.S. 299 at 304. Applying the idea that separate evidence constitutes separate
violations, I will evaluate all Notice Items to determine whether each can stand alone and has its
own evidentiary basis, or whether any two or more are so closely related (i.e., same evidentiary
basis) that they are not separate and should be considered one violation for purposes of applying
the $1,000,000 cap for an individual violation exceeding 10 days in duration. I will also
individually apply the penalty assessment considerations.
With respect to Item 1, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $100,000 for Respondent’s failure
to have and follow written procedures for making construction maps and records available to
appropriate personnel. Making these maps and records available is a key part of pipeline safety,
particularly for field personnel who must frequently refer to them in making decisions that could
impact safety. In its Response and at the hearing, Respondent argued that the penalties should be
mitigated because the failures of many other entities contributed to the November 2006 incident.
In its Response and at the hearing, Respondent argued: (1) that it didn’t have the experience that
would lead it to appreciate the magnitude of the risk of construction adjacent to its pipeline; (2)
that REX had failed to meet certain FERC obligations; (3) that REX failed to mark Respondent’s
facilities when creating REX alignment sheets; (4) that Associated Pipeline (REX’s construction
contractor) failed to locate and mark Respondent’s facilities, failed to stop work when
encroachments occurred, and continued to instruct its employees to excavate when no pipeline
markings were present; (5) that Associated Pipeline effectively subverted the one-call process;
and (6) that Associated Pipeline relied on Respondent’s line locator to locate the WIC lines yet
failed to tell it about its daily activities. Respondent then argued that because of the actions of
the other two entities, it should only be liable for approximately 1/3 of the total proposed
penalties.
Respondent’s arguments do not support a reduction of the proposed civil penalties for several
reasons. First, Respondent should have known of the risks associated with a large construction
project occurring adjacent to its active pipelines. For many years third party damage has been
widely known to be among the greatest pipeline safety threats. Respondent knew of the presence
of extensive construction and excavation activities in the vicinity of its pipelines, yet the
company failed to have and follow procedures meant to address the risks of excavation adjacent
to its pipelines. Next, even if other parties contributed to the incident, Respondent was primarily
responsible for the proper locating, marking, and surveillance of its facilities. The regulations
and Respondent’s own procedures make this clear. Yet Respondent failed on several accounts to
prepare and/or follow the many procedures that are specifically intended to address threats to its
pipelines and prevent incidents. In addition, Respondent placed the crucial responsibility for
locating and marking its pipelines in the hands of just one person, the line locator. Yet it failed
to provide him with accurate information, management, and supervision. Finally, the liability of
the other two entities was not at issue in this matter.



13
With respect to culpability, Respondent did not heed a requirement that applied to its facility and
failed to take practicable steps it could have taken to comply. With respect to gravity, the
violation contributed to a significant accident involving a fatality. Respondent has presented no
information that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for
this violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I
assess Respondent a civil penalty of $100,000 for this violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605.
With respect to Item 2, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $35,000 for Respondent’s failure to
follow its procedures for notifying excavators about its locating and marking practices.
Notifying excavators about locating and marking practices is a key first step in preventing
excavation damage. With respect to culpability, Respondent did not heed a requirement that
applied to its facility and failed to take practicable steps it could have taken to comply. With
respect to gravity, the violation contributed to a significant accident involving a fatality.
Respondent has presented no information that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty
amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and
considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $35,000 for this
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605.
With respect to Item 3, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $100,000 for Respondent’s failure
to follow its procedures for developing criteria for surveillance inspections at each location.
Developing criteria for surveillance inspections provides an important mechanism for
considering the risks involved during excavation projects and planning for adequate oversight
resources. With respect to culpability, Respondent did not heed a requirement that applied to its
facility and failed to take practicable steps it could have taken to comply. With respect to
gravity, the violation contributed to a significant accident involving a fatality. Respondent has
presented no information that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in
the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the
assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $100,000 for this violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.605.
With respect to Item 4, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $1,000,000 for Respondent’s
failure to follow its procedures for the Area Manager to conduct oversight of its contract line
locator. Inadequate oversight by Respondent’s Area Manager of its contract line locater was one
of the primary factors that led to this fatal accident. With respect to culpability, Respondent did
not heed a requirement that applied to its facility and failed to take practicable steps it could have
taken to comply. With respect to gravity, the violation was a causal factor in a significant
accident involving a fatality. Respondent has presented no information that would warrant a
reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly,
having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil
penalty of $1,000,000 for this violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605.
With respect to Item 5, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $100,000 for Respondent’s failure
to follow its procedures for locating the line and placing stakes or other markers where necessary
to identify the location of the pipeline. Poor execution of the locating and marking function was
one of the primary factors that led to this fatal accident. With respect to culpability, Respondent
did not heed a requirement that was clearly applicable to its facility and failed to take practicable
steps it could have taken to comply. With respect to gravity, the violation contributed to a
significant accident involving a fatality. Respondent has presented no information that would



14
warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $100,000 for this violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605.
With respect to Item 6, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $1,000,000 for Respondent’s
failure to follow its procedures for performing documented evaluations of marking jobs
performed by its contract line locator. OPS’ allegation in the Notice that Respondent failed to
evaluate marking jobs performed by its line locator was essentially the same allegation of failure
to conduct adequate oversight of the line locator in Item 4 and would have involved the same
evidentiary basis (i.e., conduct of the Area Manager). Therefore, the two were related for
purposes of a $1,000,000 penalty cap. As discussed above, Item 6 has been withdrawn and the
civil penalty proposed in the Notice for Item 6 is eliminated.
With respect to Item 7, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $1,000,000 for Respondent’s
failure to take appropriate action to address the repeated encroachments. The absence of action
to correct the systemic encroachment problem was a major factor in this fatal accident. With
respect to culpability, Respondent did not heed a requirement that was clearly applicable to its
facility and failed to take practicable steps it could have taken to comply. With respect to
gravity, the violation was a causal factor in a significant accident involving a fatality.
Respondent has presented no information that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty
amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and
considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $1,000,000 for this
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605.
With respect to Item 8, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $29,000 for Respondent’s failure to
establish and follow procedures for correcting the repeated encroachments. OPS’ allegation in
the Notice that Respondent failed to follow procedures for correcting repeated encroachments is
essentially the same allegation of failure to take appropriate action to address the repeated
encroachments in Item 7 and would have involved the same evidentiary basis (i.e., evidence of
what actions were and were not taken). Therefore, the two were related for purposes of a
$1,000,000 penalty cap. As discussed above, Item 8 has been withdrawn and the civil penalty
proposed in the Notice for Item 8 is eliminated.
Accordingly, with respect to Respondent’s argument that Notice Items 4, 6 and 7 were related
for purposes of the civil penalty cap, Respondent was persuasive that Item 6 was related to and
not separate from Item 4, but was not persuasive that Item 7 was related to either. In addition, I
find that Item 8 was related to and not separate from Item 7. As indicated above, Items 6 and 8
have been withdrawn.
For the reasons discussed above, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment
criteria, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $2,335,000.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require this payment 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 (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.



15
Failure to pay the $2,335,000 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 United
States District Court.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to all 8 items in the Notice, two of which
have been withdrawn. 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. Following the hearing, Respondent
and OPS mutually agreed to accept modifications to portions of the Proposed Compliance Order
set forth in the Notice and these modifications are reflected below. Pursuant to the authority of
49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following
actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:
1. In regard to Item 1 of the Notice, pertaining to El Paso's procedures for making
construction records, maps, and operating history available to appropriate operating
personnel, El Paso must:
• Revise its current procedures to specify that every person under El Paso’s direction
or supervision who is required to locate, for the purpose of construction or
excavation activity in the right of way of El Paso’s pipeline facilities, any
underground or not otherwise visible pipeline facility owned and/or operated by
El Paso (“EP Line Locators”), must be provided access to a current version of the
"as-built" maps or drawing of each underground or not otherwise visible El Paso
pipeline facility in the vicinity of the proposed excavation.
• Revise its procedures to provide such as-built maps or drawings to excavators
performing work in the right of way of El Paso’s pipeline facilities. El Paso may
provide such as-built maps or drawings to EP Line Locators and excavators
electronically or in hardcopy.
• Include in its revised procedures a specific requirement that EP Line Locators must
review the as-builts provided by El Paso with an El Paso representative before the
performance of their duties. The revised procedure must also require EP Line
Locators to consult the as-builts provided by El Paso during the performance of their
duties, and make inquires of El Paso representatives about the location of facilities
should questions arise during the performance of their duties.
• Specify the person responsible for ensuring the company’s compliance with each
revision to the procedures;
2. In regard to Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Notice, El Paso must develop and implement, for a
period of two (2) years following the effective date of this Order, written procedures that
require Area Managers or any other responsible manager or supervisor to conduct



16
unannounced reviews of the work done by EP Line Locators to ensure applicable procedures
are understood, are being followed, and are effective. During the performance of such
reviews, El Paso must give particular attention to the accuracy, visibility, and durability of
the marking and line locating work performed in relation to parallel construction activities.
In addition to the requirements set out above, the procedures must include, at a minimum,
provisions for:
• Conducting unannounced reviews of each EP Line Locator’s line locating work. The
unannounced reviews must be conducted at least once per month for projects lasting
more than a month, but no less than three (3) times for projects lasting more than a
month but less than three months. The first review must be conducted no later than
one week into the start of the project. Reviews must be conducted more often if
El Paso discovers that the EP Line Locators do not understand and/or are not
following applicable procedures, or in situations where procedures are not found to be
effective in preventing damage to the El Paso facilities.
• Documenting, in writing, all reviews of each EP Line Locator. Documentation must
describe El Paso’s responsive action if EP Line Locators are found not to be
following or not understanding procedures or in situations where procedures were
found to be ineffective. El Paso must retain documentation make it available to
PHMSA upon request. At the conclusion of the two (2) year period, El Paso must
submit a report summarizing the reviews of work done by EP Line Locators. The
report must include a list and description of projects, the dates and results of reviews,
and how El Paso addressed the results of reviews in its damage prevention
procedures.
• Clear, documented communications to excavators, constructing parties, and other
pipeline and utility operators regarding El Paso’s procedures for line locating and
marking;
3. In regard to Item 7 of the Notice, El Paso must develop and implement training for all
managers and supervisors to improve their understanding of El Paso's Continuing
Surveillance procedures. The training must:
• Be designed to improve the ability of managers and supervisors to understand and
effectively intervene in unsafe situations that could lead to hazards to persons or
property.
• Include scenarios designed to help managers and supervisors recognize recurring
unsafe behaviors associated with construction in the vicinity of El Paso’s pipeline
facilities.
• Include scenarios in which an emergency situation could have been avoided had
immediate action been taken to stop recurring unsafe behaviors that could threaten
El Paso’s pipelines; and



17
4. El Paso must maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with
fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Director, Western Region, PHMSA.
El Paso must report costs 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.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent demonstrating good cause for an extension.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not
to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the
Attorney General for appropriate relief in a District Court of the United States.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a petition for reconsideration of
this Final Order. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be sent to the Associate
Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building,
2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590. The petition must be received within 20 days of
Respondent’s receipt of this Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The
filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. All other terms
of this Final Order, including any required corrective action, shall remain in full force and effect
unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this
Final Order are effective upon receipt.
___________________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

## Provenance

- Official: Yes
- Source: <https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520081005>
- Source ID: `phmsa-enforcement`
- SHA-256: `960210ded2ddf884fa1e4fa646e771c31692289dced5a1c17b2bed41d8643b45`
- Retrieved: 2026-08-20T04:44:44.458Z
- Exported: 2026-08-25T03:53:30.934Z
- Document slug: `phmsa-enforcement-520081005`

### Source metadata

```json
{
  "cpf": "520081005",
  "operator": "COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO",
  "region": "Western",
  "pipelineType": "GAS INTERSTATE ONSHORE",
  "caseStatus": "CLOSED",
  "citedSections": [
    "192.605"
  ],
  "dataAsOf": "08/04/2026 12PM",
  "caseDataAsOf": "2026-08-04",
  "attachmentCount": 7,
  "attachments": [
    {
      "name": "520081005_closure letter_06252012.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520081005/520081005_closure%20letter_06252012.pdf",
      "bytes": 22866,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "520081005_closure letter_06252012_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520081005/520081005_closure%20letter_06252012_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 9763,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "520081005_Final Order_11232009.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520081005/520081005_Final%20Order_11232009.pdf",
      "bytes": 1049098,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "520081005_Final Order_11232009_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520081005/520081005_Final%20Order_11232009_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 95570,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "520081005_NOPV PCP PCO letter_03042008.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520081005/520081005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO%20letter_03042008.pdf",
      "bytes": 1067152,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "520081005_nopv pcp pco letter_03042008_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520081005/520081005_nopv%20pcp%20pco%20letter_03042008_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 1119944,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "520081005_operator request for hearing_04032008.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520081005/520081005_operator%20request%20for%20hearing_04032008.pdf",
      "bytes": 198209,
      "category": "party_submission"
    }
  ],
  "extractedAgencyDocumentCount": 3,
  "attachmentPolicy": "Official attachment links are retained. Agency-issued documents may also include a verified local PDF and page-level text representation.",
  "jurisdiction": "US",
  "operatorName": "COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO"
}
```