{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120161003","title":"TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2016-02-10","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.921.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120161003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120161003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120161003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120161003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.921. The case was opened on 2016-02-10 and is reported as closed as of 2019-03-06. Proposed civil penalty: $11,500. Assessed civil penalty: $11,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120161003_Closure Letter_03062019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161003/120161003_Closure%20Letter_03062019.pdf\n\n120161003_Closure Letter_03062019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161003/120161003_Closure%20Letter_03062019_text.pdf\n\n120161003_Final Order_03072018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161003/120161003_Final%20Order_03072018.pdf\n\n120161003_Final Order_03072018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161003/120161003_Final%20Order_03072018_text.pdf\n\n120161003_NOPV PCP PCO_02102016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161003/120161003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_02102016.pdf\n\n120161003_NOPV PCP PCO_02102016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161003/120161003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_02102016_text.pdf\n\n120161003_Operator Post Hearing Brief_12192016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161003/120161003_Operator%20Post%20Hearing%20Brief_12192016.pdf\n\n120161003_Operator Pre-Hearing Brief Response_11032016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161003/120161003_Operator%20Pre-Hearing%20Brief%20Response_11032016.pdf\n\n120161003_Operator Request for Hearing_03092016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161003/120161003_Operator%20Request%20for%20Hearing_03092016.pdf\n\n120161003_Operator Response to Notice_03032016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161003/120161003_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_03032016.pdf\n\n120161003_NOPV PCP PCO_02102016_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY\nFebruary 10, 2016\nMr. Gary Buchler\nVice President, Operations and Engineering\nTennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC\n1001 Louisiana Street\nHouston, TX 77002\nCPF 1-2016-1003\nDear Mr. Buchler:\nFrom July 20-24, 2015, inspectors from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), and the Connecticut Department of\nEnergy, and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) acting as Agent for PHMSA OPS, pursuant to\nChapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company’s (TGP)\nprocedures and records in Houston, Texas.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed a probable violation of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The item inspected and the\nprobable violation is:\n1. §192.921 How is the baseline assessment to be conducted?\n(d) Time period. An operator must prioritize all the covered segments for assessment in\naccordance with § 192.917 and paragraph (b) of this section. An operator must assess at\nleast 50% of the covered segments beginning with the highest risk segments, by December\n17, 2007. An operator must complete the baseline assessment of all covered segments by\nDecember 17, 2012.\nTGP failed to perform a baseline assessment of all covered segments by December 17, 2012.\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2016-1003\nTGP has a 10-inch interconnect pipe with another operator’s pipeline at 749 Meriden Waterbury\nTurnpike, Rt. 322 Southington, CT. There is approximately 10 feet of pipe from the tee at the\ntransmission line up through the 90-degree elbow and isolation valve to the interconnect point\n(348B-101.1 Southington Algonquin Interconnect). TGP designated the area an HCA.\nDuring the HQ Audit in Houston, TX, conducted from July 20-24, 2015, the CT DEEP asked\nTGP to provide the latest integrity assessment records for the interconnect referenced\nabove. TGP did not have any integrity assessment records. In an email dated August 11, 2015,\nTGP stated in part that:\n“We have not performed an assessment on the below grade portion of the interconnect to date\n(approximately 4 ½ feet of buried pipe). We are scheduling a direct assessment to be performed\nthis year (2015), and I will provide you the date of this assessment once known.”\nNeither a baseline assessment, nor any integrity assessments had been performed on the buried\nsection of the 10-inch interconnect piping.\nEvidence is based on the statements of TGP representatives, including an e-mail reply to a CT\nDEEP inspector follow-up question about the baseline assessment.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000\nper violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of\nviolations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not\nexceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a\nrelated series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s), and has recommended\nthat you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $11,500 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $11,500\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item 1 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to TGP. Please refer to\nthe Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All\nmaterial you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If\nyou believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment\nunder 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document, you must provide a second\ncopy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted\n120161003_NOPV_PCP_PCO_02102016 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2016-1003\nand an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). Not responding within 30 days of receipt of this Notice\nconstitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice, and authorizes the\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further\nnotice to you, and to issue a Final Order.\nPlease submit all correspondence in this matter to Byron Coy, PE, Director, PHMSA Eastern\nRegion, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103, W. Trenton, NJ 08628. Please refer to CPF 1-2016-\n1003 on each document you submit, and please, whenever possible, provide a signed PDF copy\nin electronic format. Smaller files may be e-mailed to Byron.Coy@dot.gov. Larger files should\nbe sent on a CD accompanied by the original paper copy to the Eastern Region Office.\nAdditionally, if you choose to respond to this (or any other) case, please ensure that any response\nletter pertains solely to one CPF case number.\nSincerely,\nByron Coy, PE\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nCc: Karl Baker CT DEEP\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n120161003_NOPV_PCP_PCO_02102016 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2016-1003\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC\n(TGP) a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the\ncompliance of TGP with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to TGP’s failure to perform a\nbaseline assessment of all covered segments by December 17, 2012, TGP must\nconduct a review of all TGP’s piping within 100 miles of Southington, CT to\ndetermine if any other sections of HCA pipe are lacking a baseline assessment.\nThis analysis must be completed within 90 days receipt of the Final Order.\n2. If any HCA pipe lacking a baseline assessment is identified in #1 above, then\nTGP must perform a baseline assessment, along with any needed remediation,\nwithin 240 days receipt of the Final Order.\n3. TGP shall submit documentation of the review, results, and any remediation\nperformed in PCO items 1 and 2 above, to the PHMSA Eastern Region Director\nwithin 365 days receipt of the Final Order.\n4. It is requested (not mandated) that TGP maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order, and submit\nthe total to Byron Coy, PE, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in\ntwo categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans,\nprocedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements,\nadditions, and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n120161003_NOPV_PCP_PCO_02102016 Page 4 of 4\n\n120161003_Final Order_03072018_text.pdf\n\nMarch 7, 2018\nMr. Kenneth W. Grubb\nChief Operating Officer\nTennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC\n1001 Louisiana Street\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 1-2016-1003\nDear Mr. Grubb:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $11,500, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nTennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The\npenalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and\nthe terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed\neffective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMs. Jessica Toll, Assistant General Counsel, Kinder Morgan, Inc.\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nTennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, ) a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc., )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nCPF No. 1-2016-1003\nFINAL ORDER\nOn July 20-24 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Tennessee Gas\nPipeline Company, LLC (TGP or Respondent) in Houston, Texas. TGP, a subsidiary of Kinder\nMorgan, Inc., operates an 11,900-mile, natural gas pipeline system that runs from the Texas and\nLouisiana coast through Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and\nPennsylvania and delivers natural gas to West Virginia, New Jersey, New York, and New\nEngland.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated February 10, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that TGP had violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.921, and proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $11,500 for the alleged violation. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to\ntake certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nTGP responded to the Notice by letter dated March 3, 2016 (Response). TGP contested the\nallegation of violation and requested a hearing. A hearing was subsequently held on November\n14, 2016, at the OPS Eastern Region’s office in West Trenton, New Jersey, with an attorney\nfrom the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. At the hearing, Respondent was\nrepresented by counsel. After the hearing, Respondent provided a post-hearing statement for the\nrecord, by letter dated December 19, 2016 (Closing).\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192.921, as follows:\n11 See https://www.kindermorgan.com/pages/business/gas pipelines/east/TGP/default.aspx (last accessed 1/18/18).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2016-1003\nPage 2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.921, which states:\n§ 192.921 How is the baseline assessment to be conducted?\nTime period. An operator must prioritize all the covered segments for\nassessment in accordance with § 192.917(c) and paragraph (b) of this\nsection. An operator must assess at least 50% of the covered segments\nbeginning with the highest risk segments, by December 17, 2007. An\noperator must complete the baseline assessment of all covered segments by\nDecember 17, 2012.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.921 by failing to perform a\nbaseline assessment of all its “covered segments”2 by December 17, 2012. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that TGP has a 10-inch interconnect pipe with another operator’s pipeline at 749\nMeriden-Waterbury Turnpike, Rt. 322 Southington, Connecticut. There is approximately 10 feet\nof pipe from the tee at the transmission line up through the 90-degree elbow and isolation valve\nto the interconnect point. TGP designated the area as a High Consequence Area (HCA) in 2004.\nDuring the July 20 - 24, 2015 inspection and in follow-up correspondence, TGP could not\nprovide any documentation or evidence to show that it had performed a baseline assessment or\nany integrity assessments on the interconnect piping described above. In an email dated, August\n11, 2015, TGP stated: “We have not performed an assessment on the below grade portion of the\ninterconnect to date (approximately 4.5 feet of buried pipe). We are scheduling a direct\nassessment to be performed this year (2015), and I will provide you the date of the assessment\nonce known.”3 However, TGP informed OPS in its Response that it was contesting the\nallegation of violation.\nIn its pre-hearing brief and at the hearing, TGP stated that OPS had failed to meet its burden in\nsupporting the allegation of violation. TGP contends that at the time PHMSA’s integrity\nmanagement rule went into effect, “using the criteria of § 192.903(2), TGP had conservatively\nidentified [a church] building as an “identified site” and thus an HCA.”4 However, TGP argues\nthat the interconnect was in fact not located in an HCA because the church in question was not\noccupied by 20 or more persons on at least five days a week, for 10 weeks in any 12-month\nperiod.5 TGP presented a letter from the church, dated March 12, 2016, stating that the church\n“does not have a day care facility and in fact, has never had a day care facility. The church holds\nSunday services for its congregation and uses the facility for other meetings as needed\nthroughout the week.” At the hearing, TGP reported that in a follow-up call with the church, a\nchurch official stated that the typical meeting size was 5-10 people. Accordingly, TGP contends\nthat there was no violation of law for failure to perform the assessment because the site was not\nan HCA, and there is no requirement to assess the site.”6\n2 The term “covered segment” is defined in 49 C.F.R. § 192.903 as “a segment of gas transmission pipeline located\nin a high consequence area,” i.e., locations where the potential consequences of a gas pipeline accident are higher\nthan in other areas. See 49 C.F.R. § 192.903.\n3 Pipeline Safety Violation Report, 1-2016-1003, at 5.\n4 Pre-Hearing Brief of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, at 5.\n5 49 C.F.R. § 192.903\n6 Id.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2016-1003\nPage 3\nTGP presented hypothetical scenarios wherein a company or individual had a mistaken\nunderstanding of the law and therefore believed they had violated the law when they had not.\nFor example, a company has not violated the law when the amount of pollution it emits exceeds\na limit the company mistakenly believes to be in effect. A driver who makes a right turn she\nbelieves to be illegal has not violated the law when no law actually restricts right turns.\nLikewise, TGP stated that it could not have violated an obligation to perform a baseline\nassessment for a pipeline segment that is not actually located in an HCA, even if TGP once\nmistakenly believed the segment was in an HCA because it had made an incorrect assumption\nabout the number of people that utilized the potential “identified site.”\nIn TGP’s Post Hearing Brief, TGP noted that at the hearing, OPS did not dispute TGP’s\ncontention that the church in question did not meet the criteria for an “identified site” in\n49 C.F.R. § 192.903. TGP disputed OPS’s position that TGP’s initial designation of the church\nas an identified site, whether accurate or not, rendered the church an identified site “as a matter\nof law.”7 TGP reasoned that “[i]f TGP can, by virtue of its mistaken designation in its own\nrecords, make this church into an ‘identified site’ regardless of the application of the regulatory\ndefinition, then the reverse must also be true. . . because . . . the Operator’s determination is\nabsolute. Such a determination is absurd.”8\nFinally, TGP argued that the allegation against it is moot because the parties agree that the\npipeline segment is not in an HCA and therefore should not be subject to the integrity\nmanagement regulations. TGP stated that OPS must withdraw the proposed civil penalty and\ncompliance order.\nIn the Region Recommendation and Post-Hearing Legal Memorandum, OPS points out that TGP\nhad not updated its HCA listings between its 2004 designation of the site as an HCA and the\npipeline safety inspection in 2015. OPS further noted out that TGP was required to complete the\nbaseline analysis of the site designated as an HCA by December 12, 2012. OPS argued that once\nan allegation of violation occurs, operators are not entitled to re-analyze each HCA designation\nin an attempt to defend itself against the allegation; operators are responsible for accurately\nidentifying and updating HCAs located along their pipeline systems.\nNext, OPS states that TGP mistakenly provides arguments that would be relevant to allegations\nof violation of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.911 or 192.905, which state the criteria for identifying HCAs.\nOPS counters that it need not allege a violation of those provisions in order to allege an IMP\nviolation. OPS stated: “If the operator’s IMP documents state that a segment is located within an\nHCA, the operator is obligated to conduct a baseline assessment . . . An operator cannot\ndisregard this duty for several years, [then] redesignate the area as no longer being an HCA after\nviolation of the duty, and claim to have never been out of compliance.”9\nAlthough OPS maintains it has no duty to allege or prove that the church in question met the\ndefinition of an “identified site,” OPS notes that TGP provided no details to support its\n7 Post-Hearing Brief of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, at 3.\n8 Id.\n9 Post-Hearing Legal Memorandum, Addendum to Eastern Region Post-Hearing Recommendation, at 4-5.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2016-1003\nPage 4\ncontention that the church was not an “identified site” in 2004, except to say that the church had\nnever had a day care facility. Otherwise, the letter from the church only described church\nactivities in 2016.\nFinally, OPS takes issue with TGP’s claim that if an operator’s determination of an HCA “is\nabsolute,” then the reverse must also be true, namely, that TGP cannot be held liable for failing\nto identify a site as an HCA.10 OPS reiterates that the legal requirements for designating\n“identified sites” and the legal requirements for performing a baseline assessment on those sites\nare distinct.\nAs stated above, 49 C.F.R. § 192.921 requires operators to perform a baseline assessment of all\ncovered segments by December 17, 2012. In considering whether TGP performed a baseline\nassessment of all covered segments, as alleged by OPS, I am persuaded by OPS’ argument that\nthe legal requirements for 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.911 and 192.903 are distinct from the legal\nrequirements for 49 C.F.R. § 192.921. TGP designated the church as an identified site. It could\nhave changed that designation, if appropriate, any time between 2004 and December 2012, but it\ndid not. OPS need not prove that each relevant HCA correctly corresponds to a properly\ndesignated identified site each time it makes an allegation of an IMP violation.\nFinally, I disagree with TGP’s characterization of its alleged erroneous designation of the church\nas an HCA as a “mistake of law,” and thus akin to the scenarios described above. TGP has not\nidentified language within § 192.921 that it misinterpreted or was unaware of; it had no mistaken\nunderstanding about the legal standard. It is possible that TGP did not gather sufficient\ninformation about the church and the church’s use during its evaluation process in 2004. If\nanything, this would be a preventable “mistake of fact.” Nonetheless, TGP stated that it\n“conservatively” designated the church building as an “identified site” and thus an HCA.”11\n(emphasis added). TGP cannot disown its decision to “conservatively” identify a church as an\n“identified site” once a violation has been alleged.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.921 by failing to perform a baseline assessment of the\ninterconnect in Southington, Connecticut segments by December 17, 2012.\nThis findings of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.12 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n10 Post-Hearing Brief of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, at 3.\n11 Id., at 5.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2016-1003\nPage 5\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $11,500 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $11,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.921, for failing to perform a baseline assessment of all covered segments by December 17,\n2012. TGP did not present any argument or provide any basis for reduction of the proposed civil\npenalty, per 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, in the event that PHMSA rejected its arguments related to site\nidentification in 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.903 and 192.911. Therefore, I see no evidence or argument\nthat justifies the reduction of the proposed civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $11,500 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.921.\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a total civil penalty of $11,500.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.\nThe Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $11,500 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.921. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or\nwho owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and\n49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance\nwith the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n12 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat.\n1904, January 3, 2012, increased the civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to $200,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2016-1003\nPage 6\nWith respect to the violation of § 192.921 (Item 1), Respondent must:\n1. 2. 3. 4. Conduct a review of all TGP’s piping within 100 miles of Southington, Connecticut, to\ndetermine if any other sections of HCA pipe are lacking a baseline assessment. This\nanalysis must be complete within 90 days receipt of the Final Order.\nIf any HCA pipe lacking a baseline assessment is identified in #1 above, then TGP must\nperform a baseline assessment, along with any needed remediation, within 240 days\nreceipt of the Final Order.\nTGP shall submit documentation of the review, results, and any remediation performed in\nCompliance Order Items 1 and 2 above, the PHMSA Eastern Region Director, within 365\ndays receipt of the Final Order.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that TGP maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order, and submit the total\nto PHMSA Eastern Region. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories:\n1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies, and\nanalyses, and 2) total costs associated with replacements, additions, and other changes to\npipeline infrastructure.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all\nother terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nMarch 7, 2018\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n120161003_Closure Letter_03062019_text.pdf\n\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY\nMarch 06, 2019\nMr. Kenneth W. Grubb\nChief Operating Officer\nTennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC\n1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000\nHouston, TX 77002\nCPF 1-2016-1003\nDear Mr. Grubb:\nFrom July 20-24 of 2015, inspectors from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), and the Connecticut Department of\nEnergy, and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) acting as Agent for PHMSA OPS, pursuant to\nChapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company’s (TGP)\nprocedures and records in Houston, Texas. TGP is a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan.\nAs a result of the inspection, TGP was issued a Notice of Probable Violation (NOPV), Proposed\nCivil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order on February 10, 2016. Following enforcement\nproceedings, a Final Order was issued on March 7, 2018.\nPursuant to the Final Order, TGP paid a civil penalty in the amount of $11,500.00 on April 9, 2018,\nand submitted documentation showing it took certain actions to ensure compliance with the terms\nof the Order on February 27, 2019.\nBased on our review of the documentation, it appears that the inadequacies outlined in this NOPV\nhave been corrected.\nThis letter is to inform you no further action is necessary, and this case is now closed. Thank you\nfor your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nRobert Burrough\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nCc: Karl Baker, CT DEEP","truncated":false,"body_characters":30252}