{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120161011","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":"2016-11-10","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.605(a), 192.605(b)(2).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120161011.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120161011.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120161011","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120161011","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.605(a),  192.605(b)(2). The case was opened on 2016-11-10 and is reported as closed as of 2018-11-29. Proposed civil penalty: $34,500. Assessed civil penalty: $0. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120161011_Final Order_11292018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161011/120161011_Final%20Order_11292018.pdf\n\n120161011_Final Order_11292018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161011/120161011_Final%20Order_11292018_text.pdf\n\n120161011_NOPV PCP PCO_11102016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161011/120161011_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_11102016.pdf\n\n120161011_NOPV PCP PCO_11102016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161011/120161011_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_11102016_text.pdf\n\n120161011_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing_12092016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161011/120161011_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing_12092016.pdf\n\n120161011_NOPV PCP PCO_11102016_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY\nNovember 10, 2016\nMr. Gary Buchler\nChief Operating Officer, Natural Gas Pipelines\nTennessee Gas Pipeline Company\n1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000\nHouston, TX 77002-5089\nCPF 1-2016-1011\nDear Mr. Buchler:\nOn September 1-4, 2015, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49\nUnited States Code, inspected Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company’s (TGP) (a subsidiary of Kinder\nMorgan Liquid Terminals, LLC) Compressor Station 323A in Hawley, Pennsylvania.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged 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. §192.605 Procedural Manual for Operations, Maintenance and Emergencies\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of written\nprocedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency\nresponse. . . .\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this\nsection must include procedures for the following, if applicable, to provide safety during\nmaintenance and operations.\n\n\n\n1-2016-1011\n(1) . . .\n(2) Controlling corrosion in accordance with the operations and maintenance\nrequirements of Subpart I of this part.\nTGP’s procedure for monitoring atmospheric corrosion failed to provide specific guidance on\ngiving particular attention to pipe under thermal insulation in accordance with §192.481(b).\nDuring the inspection on September 3, 2015, the PHMSA inspector reviewed Kinder Morgan\nO&M Procedure 918, Inspecting for Atmospheric Corrosion, revised 2013-06-01. Section 3.2,\nAtmospheric Corrosion Monitoring and Inspection Frequency, states in part that:\n“ . . . During inspection, give particular attention to the following components:\n . . .\n Pipe under thermal or noise abatement insulation\n . . .\nPipe that is not visually accessible (e.g. pipe under insulation, under clamps or supports, piping\nthrough walls or floors, etc.) and where evidence of atmospheric corrosion would not be apparent\nif present must be inspected visually by removing clamps, supporting the pipe while the pipe\nsupports are removed, etc. [Numbering added]\n[1] In these cases a program may be developed where pipe is visually inspected in selected\ncritical areas or using predetermined inspection locations (i.e. inspection ports) until a minimal\nrisk level is determined. These programs must be reviewed and approved by the appropriate\nDivision Corrosion Supervisor.\n[2] Alternately, jacketing or other obstructions may be removed and the total system visually\ninspected.\n[3] In lieu of visual inspection, an NDE method approved by the Manager, Corrosion Control\nthat would detect the presence of atmospheric corrosion may be used. . . ”\nThe procedure failed to provide:\na. Details such as:\ni. ii. iii. Criteria for selecting the option.\nIndividual(s) responsible for selecting the method.\nDocumentation of the selected method.\nDetails for determining probable areas of corrosion on pipe beneath the insulation, such\nas damaged insulation, low points on vertical runs, areas where pipe supports penetrate\nthe insulation jacketing, or areas with caulking deterioration.\nc. Requirements for documenting atmospheric corrosion inspections on insulated piping.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $205,638\nper violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,056,380 for a related series of\nb. 120161011_NOPV PCP PCO_11102016 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n1-2016-1011\nviolations. For violations occurring between January 4, 2012 to August 1, 2016, the maximum\npenalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed\n$2,000,000 for a related series of violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012,\nthe maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty\nnot to exceed $1,000,000 for related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed\nthe circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation, and\nhas recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $34,500 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $34,500\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\nand an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). Failure to respond 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.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 1-2016-1011 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nByron Coy, PE\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n120161011_NOPV PCP PCO_11102016 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n1-2016-1011\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 (TGP) a\nCompliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure TGP’s\ncompliance with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. 4. With regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to TGP’s failure to\nprovide specific guidance on how to give particular attention to pipe under\nthermal insulation in accordance with §192.481(b), TGP must update its\nprocedures to provide guidance for performing atmospheric corrosion inspections\non pipelines under thermal insulation. The procedures shall be revised within 60\ndays of receipt of the Final Order.\nTGP shall inspect the piping at pipe supports in the unit 75223 Coudersport\nDistrict / Wellsboro-North Scranton – PA)(see map) in accordance with the\nrevised procedures, within 12 months of issuance of the Final Order.\nAll documentation demonstrating compliance with each of the items outlined in\nthis proposed compliance order must be submitted to Byron Coy, PE, Director,\nEastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Suite\n103, Bear Tavern Road, West Trenton, NJ, within the time frames stated for each\nitem.\nIt 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.\n120161011_NOPV PCP PCO_11102016 Page 4 of 4\n\n120161011_Final Order_11292018_text.pdf\n\nNovember 29, 2018\nMr. Gary Buchler\nChief Operating Officer, Natural Gas Pipelines\nTennessee Gas Pipeline Company\n1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 1-2016-1011; 1-2016-1012\nDear Mr. Buchler:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced cases. It withdraws the\nallegations of violation for both Notices, the associated civil penalties, and compliance orders.\nThese cases are now closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the\ndate of mailing as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMs. Jessica Toll, Esq., Assistant General Counsel, Kinder Morgan, 370 Van Gordon\nStreet, Lakewood, CO 80228\nMs. Catherine D. Little, Esq., Bank of America Plaza, Suite 4100, 600 Peachtree Street,\nN.E., Atlanta, GA 30308\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, ) CPF No. 1-2016-1011; 1-2016-1012\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom August - October 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives 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 (Tennessee Gas or Respondent). Tennessee Gas operates approximately\n13,900 miles of pipeline from the Gulf coast in Texas and Louisiana through Arkansas,\nMississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letters dated November 10, 2016, and November 21, 2016, two Notices of Probable Violation,\nProposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notices). In accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.207, each Notice proposed finding that Tennessee Gas violated 49 C.F.R. §192.605\nand proposed assessing a civil penalty of $34,500 for the alleged violation. The Notices also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nTennessee Gas responded to the Notice by letter dated December 9, 2016 (Response). The\ncompany contested the allegations and requested a hearing. A hearing was subsequently held on\nApril 26, 2017, in West Trenton, New Jersey. At the hearing, Respondent was represented by\ncounsel.\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION- 1-2016-1011\nAt the hearing, Tennessee Gas contested the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, which states:\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2016-1011; 1-2016-1012\nPage 2\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each\npipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and\nmaintenance activities and for emergency response. . .\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following,\nif applicable, to provide safety during maintenance and operations.\n(1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in\naccordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart M\nof this part.\n(2) Controlling corrosion in accordance with the operations and\nmaintenance requirements of subpart I of this part.\n§ 192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: General.\n(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline\nthat is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion,\nas follows….\n(b) During inspections the operator must give particular attention to\npipe at soil-to-air interfaces, under thermal insulation, under disbanded\ncoatings, at pipe supports, in splash zones, at deck penetrations, and in\nspans over water.\n(c) If atmospheric corrosion is found during an inspection, the\noperator must provide protection against the corrosion as required by\n§192.479.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605 by failing to prepare and\nfollow for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for operating, maintaining, and\nrepairing the pipeline to control corrosion in accordance with the requirements of § 192.481(b).\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that the Tennessee Gas procedure for monitoring atmospheric\ncorrosion, O&M Procedure 918, failed to provide specific guidance on how to give particular\nattention to pipe under thermal insulation. OPS argued that the Respondent’s procedure failed to\ngive sufficient detail such that a corrosion technician could adequately detect the presence of\natmospheric corrosion during an inspection. In the Notice, OPS stated that the procedure “failed\nto provide . . . details such as … i. Criteria for selecting the option. ii. Individual(s) responsible\nfor selecting the method. iii. Documentation of the selected method…..”1\nTennessee Gas strongly objected to OPS’ decision to issue an NOPV based on the circumstances\npresented by this case. The Respondent referred to OPS’ Part 192 Corrosion Enforcement\nGuidance. Tennessee Gas argued that, while not legally enforceable, PHMSA guidance does not\nsupport either (1) the use of a Notice of Probable Violation to address the level of detail in\nexisting procedures; or (2) enforcement actions that allege two offenses for a single violation that\nis based on the same evidence.2 Additionally, Tennessee Gas refuted OPS’ allegation that its\n1 Notice of Probable Violation 1-2016-1011 (Notice), (November 10, 2016) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n2 “Based on PHMSA procedural Part 190 rules, internal Agency enforcement procedures, and prior Agency\nenforcement, PHMSA should have issued a single NOA in this instance.” Tennessee Gas Post- Hearing Brief, at 7.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2016-1011; 1-2016-1012\nPage 3\nprocedure failed to provide sufficient detail for a corrosion technician to perform an inspection.\nRespondent argued that O&M Procedure 918 allows for a corrosion technician to elect between\nvisually inspecting pipes by removing insulation or clamps or developing a program whereby\nvisual inspections occur in select critical areas or predetermined inspection locations (emphasis\nadded). The Respondent argued that this flexibility is allowed by the regulation, and comports\nwith the requirement that its O&M Manual include procedures that mandate particular attention\nbe paid to pipe under thermal insulation.\nIn its post-hearing brief, Tennessee Gas ascribed particular significance to the fact that the\nNotice only alleged a deficiency in its procedures, and not the actual inspections conducted\npursuant to those procedures. At the hearing, OPS conceded this point, and stated that it was not\nalleging that Tennessee Gas either failed to conduct the required corrosion control inspections or\nthat corrosion was found during inspections conducted pursuant to the allegedly deficient\nprocedures.\nTherefore, the only question required for decision is whether Tennessee Gas’ actual procedure is\nso lacking in detail as to violate § 192.605 or § 192.481. In reading the plain language of these\nregulations, I find that TGP’s procedure comports with these regulations. Tennessee Gas’\nprocedure states “during the inspection, give particular attention to the following components. . .\npipe under thermal or noise abatement insulation…pipe that is not visually accessible.” The\nprocedure further explicates how to inspect pipes that are not visually accessible. From a plain\nreading of the regulation, O&M Procedure 918 meets the threshold set by the regulation. At the\nhearing, OPS conceded that it cannot require the operator to have any particular language in its\nprocedural manual – that is left to the discretion of the operator, within the confines of the\nregulatory language. There is no language in this regulation that requires the operator to provide\nthe level of detail in its procedures cited in this Notice.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of the evidence, I find that Respondent did not violate 49\nC.F.R. § 192.605, as alleged in the Notice, and therefore withdraw Item 1.\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION- 1-2016-1012\nAt the hearing, Tennessee Gas contested the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, which states:\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each\npipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and\nmaintenance activities and for emergency response. . .\nPHMSA Pipeline Safety Enforcement Procedures Section 4, p. 25, 27 (Mar. 23, 2016) (inspectors should “use\ncaution before citing the same code or subsection for more than one Item in a NOPV letter because if the items are\nbased on the same evidence, it may result in a single violation being inappropriately alleged as multiple violations”)\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2016-1011; 1-2016-1012\nPage 4\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following, if\napplicable, to provide safety during maintenance and operations.\n(1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance\nwith each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart M of this part.\n(2) Controlling corrosion in accordance with the operations and\nmaintenance requirements of subpart I of this part.\n§ 192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: General.\n(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline\nthat is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion,\nas follows….\n(b) During inspections the operator must give particular attention to\npipe at soil-to-air interfaces, under thermal insulation, under disbanded\ncoatings, at pipe supports, in splash zones, at deck penetrations, and in\nspans over water.\n(c) If atmospheric corrosion is found during an inspection, the\noperator must provide protection against the corrosion as required by\n§192.479.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605 by failing to prepare and\nfollow for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for operating, maintaining, and\nrepairing the pipeline. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Tennessee Gas’ procedure for\nmonitoring atmospheric corrosion, O&M Procedure 918, failed to provide specific guidance on\nhow to give particular attention to pipe at pipe supports in accordance with §192.481(b).\nRespondent contested this allegation of violation. I am adopting the arguments set forth in my\nconsideration of the violation in 1-2016-1011. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent did not violate 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, as alleged in the Notice,\nand therefore withdraw Item I.\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.3 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\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\n3 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum\nCivil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2016-1011; 1-2016-1012\nPage 5\ncivil penalty of $69,000 for the violations cited in 1-2016-1011 and 1-2016-1012.\n1-2016-1011 Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $34,500 for Respondent’s violation\nof 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, for failing to prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of written\nprocedures for operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline. For the reasons discussed\nabove, I find that the Respondent did not violate this regulation. Accordingly, having reviewed\nthe record, I withdraw the civil penalty of $34,500.\n1-2016-1012 Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $34,500 for Respondent’s violation\nof 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, for failing to prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of written\nprocedures for operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline. For the reasons discussed\nabove, I find that the Respondent did not violate this regulation. Accordingly, having reviewed\nthe record, I withdraw the civil penalty of $34,500.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed compliance orders with respect to Item 1 in Notice 1-2016-1011 and Item 1\nin Notice 1-2016-1012 for violation of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.605.\nAs stated above, I am withdrawing both Notices. Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in\nthe Notice are also withdrawn.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nNovember 29, 2018\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":23161}