# TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 120181001
- **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:** 2018-02-12
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.616, 192.706.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120181001.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120181001.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120181001
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120181001
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.616,  192.706. The case was opened on 2018-02-12 and is reported as closed as of 2019-11-26. Proposed civil penalty: $39,700. Assessed civil penalty: $39,700. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

120181001_Closure Letter_11262019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120181001/120181001_Closure%20Letter_11262019.pdf

120181001_Closure Letter_11262019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120181001/120181001_Closure%20Letter_11262019_text.pdf

120181001_Final Order_11142019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120181001/120181001_Final%20Order_11142019.pdf

120181001_Final Order_11142019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120181001/120181001_Final%20Order_11142019_text.pdf

120181001_NOPV PCP PCO_02122018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120181001/120181001_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_02122018.pdf

120181001_NOPV PCP PCO_02122018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120181001/120181001_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_02122018_text.pdf

120181001_Operator Post Hearing Brief_07252018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120181001/120181001_Operator%20Post%20Hearing%20Brief_07252018.pdf

120181001_Operator Pre-Hearing Submission_06042018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120181001/120181001_Operator%20Pre-Hearing%20Submission_06042018.pdf

120181001_Operator Request for Hearing and Preliminary Statement of Issues and Request For Documents_03152018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120181001/120181001_Operator%20Request%20for%20Hearing%20and%20Preliminary%20Statement%20of%20Issues%20and%20Request%20For%20Documents_03152018.pdf

120181001_Operator Response To Notice and Request For Hearing_Item 2_03152018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120181001/120181001_Operator%20Response%20To%20Notice%20and%20Request%20For%20Hearing_Item%202_03152018.pdf

120181001_PHC Hearing Scheduled_04172018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120181001/120181001_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_04172018.pdf

120181001_PHC Hearing Scheduled_04172018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120181001/120181001_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_04172018_text.pdf

120181001_Final Order_11142019_text.pdf

November 14, 2019
Ms. Kimberly Allen Dang
President
Kinder Morgan, Inc.
1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000
Houston, Texas 77002
Re: CPF No. 1-2018-1001
Dear Ms. Dang:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary,
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company. It withdraws one of the allegations of violation, makes a
finding of violation, and assesses a civil penalty of $39,700. This is to acknowledge receipt of
payment of the full penalty amount, by wire transfer dated March 15, 2018. This enforcement
action is now closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of
mailing as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Kenneth Grubb, Chief Operating Officer, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company,
1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77002
Ms. Jessica Toll, Esq., Assistant General Counsel, Kinder Morgan, Inc., 370 Van
Gordon Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80228
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 1-2018-1001
a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc., )
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From May 9-11, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 60106 and 60117, representatives of the
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, as agent for the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Tennessee Gas
Pipeline Company (TGP or Respondent), in Connecticut. TGP operates approximately 11,750
miles of pipelines which run from the Gulf of Mexico coast in Texas and Louisiana through
Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and deliver gas
to various states in the northeastern United States. Kinder Morgan, Inc. is the parent company of
TGP.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated February 12, 2018, 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 TGP had committed two violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed
assessing a civil penalty of $39,700 for one of the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed
ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
TGP responded to the Notice by letter dated March 15, 2018 (Response). TGP did not contest
the first alleged violation and paid the civil penalty for that item. TGP contested the second
alleged violation and requested a hearing. A hearing was subsequently held on June 12, 2018, in
West Trenton, New Jersey before a PHMSA Presiding Official. At the hearing, Respondent was
represented by counsel. Respondent provided additional written material prior to the hearing by
letter dated June 4, 2018 (Prehearing Submission), and following the hearing by letter dated July
26, 2018 (Post-hearing Submission). The Director submitted a region recommendation on
1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Feb. 12, 2018) (on file with PHMSA), at 1; Kinder Morgan,
Inc. website, available at https://www kindermorgan.com/business/gas pipelines/east/TGP (last accessed Oct. 9,
2019).



CPF No. 1-2018-1001
Page 2
January 3, 2019 (Region Recommendation). TGP submitted a reply to the Director’s
recommendation on February 13, 2019 (Reply).
FINDING 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. § 192.616(a), which states:
§ 192.616 Public awareness.
(a) Except for an operator of a master meter or petroleum gas system
covered under paragraph (j) of this section, each pipeline operator must
develop and implement a written continuing public education program that
follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API)
Recommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see §192.7).
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(a) by failing to implement
certain elements of its written continuing public education program. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that TGP failed to provide the program communications materials to the appropriate
public officials in 11 specified towns in accordance with its written procedures.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(a) by failing to provide
written public education program materials to the appropriate public officials in 11 towns in
accordance with its written procedures.
This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action
taken against Respondent.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.706, which states:
§ 192.706 Transmission lines: Leakage surveys.
Leakage surveys of a transmission line must be conducted at intervals
not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. However, in
the case of a transmission line which transports gas in conformity with
§192.625 without an odor or odorant, leakage surveys using leak detector
equipment must be conducted—
(a) In Class 3 locations, at intervals not exceeding 7 ½ months, but at
least twice each calendar year; and
(b) In Class 4 locations, at intervals not exceeding 4 ½ months, but at
least four times each calendar year.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.706 by failing to conduct
transmission line leakage surveys at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each
calendar year at four specified locations. Specifically, the Notice alleged that TGP’s aerial



CPF No. 1-2018-1001
Page 3
leakage surveys, which among other things look for dead vegetation, should have been
supplemented with ground surveys where the pipeline crossed under a paved parking lot in each
of the four locations.
In its Response and at the hearing, TGP argued that the plain language of the regulation does not
require that an operator conducting leak detection on gas transmission lines using aerial surveys
to also use ground surveys in paved areas the size of the specified parking lots.2 Respondent
stated that the regulation is a performance-based rule that does not prescribe any particular
method for conducting these leak surveys and an individual operator has the latitude to determine
its leak survey method to be used, and that aerial patrolling had been used for decades on
odorized lines.3
TGP noted that under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), a regulation must provide a
regulated entity with “fair notice” of the obligations it imposes and be issued pursuant to notice
and comment rulemaking.4 Quoting ExxonMobil Pipeline Co v. US. DOT, No. 16-60448, 2017
US. App. LEXIS 15144 (5th Cir. Aug. 14, 2017), TGP stated that “fair notice requires the
agency to have stated with ascertainable certainty what is meant by the standards it has
promulgated."5
Respondent also argued that this citation was inconsistent with OPS’ past enforcement practices
involving the leak detection regulation which raised additional fair notice issues. At the hearing,
TGP stated:
“If PHMSA wants to change its interpretation or adopt a new
interpretation, due process requires that there be notice and comment rule
making and everybody be put on notice of the new interpretation. It seems
like we have a body of 30 years of agency guidance saying that aerial patrols
are okay and then all of a sudden we get an NOPV…”6
TGP also argued that the presence of an odorant is recognized under the code as impacting a
pipeline's need for other leak survey methods such as instrumented leakage surveys. In
§ 192.706, additional methods such as surveys using leak detector equipment are only specified
for pipelines that "transport gas...without an odor or odorant." Odorized pipelines require only a
leakage survey once each calendar year at intervals not exceeding 15 months and the regulations
do not specify a method for accomplishing the survey. TGP argued that the administrative
record of the original rulemaking that established the regulation at issue supported its position:
In the preamble to the final rule, PHMSA expressly stated that aerial
2 Post-hearing submission, at 1.
3 Post-hearing submission, at 2.
4 5 USC § 554(b).
5 Post-hearing submission, at 17.
6 Hearing transcript, at 19.



CPF No. 1-2018-1001
Page 4
patrols were sufficient when it said "[n]either 192.705 nor 192.706 specifies
how patrols or leakage surveys are to be accomplished. The rules are written
in performance language. Thus, for example, both aerial patrols and aerial
leakage surveys would be acceptable where they are appropriate and
effective." Final Rule, 40 Fed. Reg. 20279, 20282 (May 9, 1975), see
Exhibit 4 to TGP pre-hearing brief.
PHMSA acknowledged the limitations of aerial patrols and yet did not
state that they were an unacceptable method of conducting leak surveys in
areas with odorized gas. Specifically, the agency stated:
OPS considers the use of leak detection
devices to provide the most satisfactory
means of protection in the absence of
odorization for the following reasons.
Without instruments, gas leaks are detected
by sight, sound, smell or by dying vegetation.
However, most leaks are not visible or
audible, and without an odorant natural gas
cannot be detected by smell. It follows that
observing vegetation is not always effective.
The effect of a gas leak on vegetation is only
noticeable during the growing season; and a
leak must exist for a long time to have
noticeable effect on vegetation.
In contrast, PHMSA expressly required an alternative method to visual
aerial surveys for transmission lines in Class 3 and 4 locations with
unodorized gas because "to conduct leakage surveys [without odorized gas]
without using detector equipment would not yield a level of safety
comparable to that provided by odorization of gas." The agency also states
that " ... leakage surveys using leak detector equipment must be conducted
under 192.706 as an alternative safety measure except where gas is
odorized ... " Id. at 20283 (emphasis added).
It is particularly notable that the proposed rule would have required leak
detection equipment in Class 4 locations even where gas is odorized, but
PHMSA revised its position in the final rule stating clearly, "[t]he final rule
does not require the use of detector equipment in Class 4 locations where
transmission lines carry odorized gas." Exhibit 4 to TGP Pre-hearing brief,
Final Rule, 40 Fed. Reg. 20282 (May 9, 1975).7
OPS acknowledged that the regulation was a performance-based regulation, but stated that the
7 Post-hearing submission, at 5.



CPF No. 1-2018-1001
Page 5
method had to be effective.8 OPS cited a 2009 Letter of Interpretation which stated that
operators could utilize aerial surveys only if they were effective and that determination should be
informed by factors including the time of year, weather conditions, ground visibility, soil
conditions, and the location of the pipeline and that additional leakage survey methods would
potentially be necessary in locations without vegetation cover.9 OPS argued that the aerial
surveys conducted by TGP were inherently ineffective at detecting leaks in paved areas because
TGP’s own written procedures list the leak indicators that TGP personnel should be looking for
while conducting leak surveys to include “signs of erosion,” “sunken backfill,” and “dead
vegetation.”10 TGP disagreed, stating that OPS had no evidentiary basis that would support a
determination that its leak detection method for the areas at issue were ineffective. TGP argued
that the available information was more consistent with a determination that its leak detection
program was effective. TGP explained that there were numerous test points in the vicinity of the
parking lots, and its personnel are trained to recognize gas leaks when they are performing
electrical checks, patrols or other duties on the pipeline and they would respond to any gas odors
detected.11 As a measure of its effectiveness, TGP stated that no leaks had ever been detected in
the four locations specified in the NOPV.12
Having considered these arguments, OPS is correct that a performance-based regulation must be
carried out in a manner that is effective in achieving the purpose. However, in the absence of a
reason to believe that TGP’s method was ineffective, such as one or more leak incidents, it is
OPS that has the burden of proof in showing that Respondent’s methods were not effective. The
2009 Letter of Interpretation cited by OPS does not shift this burden in this proceeding. In the
context of proving a code violation for ineffective leak detection where no leaks had occurred, it
was incumbent on OPS to demonstrate that underground migration patterns or other factors made
Respondent’s method ineffective. OPS did not provide any technical analysis along these lines
and no history of a leak incident was shown.
OPS also argued that TGP had fair notice that parking lots were required to have supplemental
leakage surveys by citing the Guide for Gas Transmission, Distribution, and Gathering Piping
System (Addendum 8, 2017 to the 2015 Edition) (GPTC Guide).13 Although the GPTC Guide
has not been incorporated into the regulations, OPS views it as evidence of industry practices
that operators should be aware of. TGP countered that the reliance on guidance by OPS was
inconsistent with the importance of notice and comment rulemaking, and that the Constitutional
principal of due process and the Administrative Procedure Act limit the role that agency
8 Hearing transcript, at 12.
9 PHMSA Interpretation PI-09-0018 (Nov. 5, 2009) available at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/interp/PI-
09-0018.
10 Hearing transcript, at 57.
11 Hearing transcript, at 34-35.
12 Id.
13 Region recommendation, at 8-9.



CPF No. 1-2018-1001
Page 6
guidance can play.14 TGP also pointed out that reliance on guidance was inconsistent with
Executive Branch policy.15 TGP is correct that the GPTC Guide does not create an enforceable
requirement on when to conduct a survey other than a vegetation survey. TGP was also able to
show that other interpretive statements made by OPS were either agnostic on the method to be
used or tended to support its argument that ground patrols for small paved areas had never been
required in the past on odorized pipelines for which aerial patrolling of a vegetated right-of-way
was done.16
During the hearing, OPS cited a Notice of Amendment that had been issued to another operator
in accordance with § 190.206 and noted how that operator had amended its procedures to include
supplemental leak detection in paved areas.17 OPS stated that TGP’s written procedures “don’t
specify that in areas where there’s inadequate vegetation, that TGP would have to provide further
instruction on how to perform leak surveys…”.18 In this case, however, for whatever reason
OPS elected not to allege that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate.19 To be sure,
Respondent would probably be well served by enhancing its written procedures for addressing
smaller paved areas such as parking lots.20 Under the regulation that was cited in the Notice,
however, an operator is not required to have any particular combination of methods for
conducting leak surveys on an odorized pipeline.
The four parking lots specified in this case were of a size that held approximately 50-100 cars. If
aerial surveys of vegetation were being performed along a significant portion of a pipeline right-
of-way where no vegetation was present anywhere in the vicinity at the time of the patrol such as
hundreds of yards of fields in a non-growing season, it may well have been a violation for TGP
not to use leak detection methods other than aerial vegetation patrols. In this case, however,
TGP was doing aerial patrols along a vegetated right-of-way during the season of growth. Based
on the text of the regulation, an operator in TGP’s position has no way of knowing how small a
paved area crossing that right of way must be to avoid a citation. Operators would be left to
wonder what OPS would do if the size of a given parking lot is less than 50-100 cars. There are
also driveways, recreation areas, structures, and walkways which are common along pipeline
right of ways. Based on the very austere plain language of this one-sentence regulation, and in
the absence of any authoritative history of any pipeline operator being found in violation of the
14 Post-hearing submission, at 6.
15 Memorandum for all Components from the Attorney General, Subject: Prohibition on Improper Guidance
Documents, November 16, 2017. The Attorney General stated that: "guidance may not be used as a substitute for
rulemaking and may not be used to impose new requirements on entities outside the Executive Branch. Nor should
guidance create binding standards by which the Department will determine compliance with existing regulatory or
statutory requirements."
16 Hearing transcript, at 17-18.
17 Hearing transcript, at 65.
18 Hearing transcript, at 54.
19 This would have involved citing § 192.605.
20 OPS likely could have issued a Notice of Amendment under § 190.206 along these lines instead of an NOPV.



CPF No. 1-2018-1001
Page 7
cited regulation under similar circumstances, I find that the use of an alleged violation of
§ 192.706 to establish a new requirement for TGP on top of using aerial patrolling for a right-of-
way containing ample vegetation that has small paved areas the size of the parking lots specified
in this case is inconsistent with fair notice.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that OPS
did not meet its burden of proving that TGP violated the cited regulation. Based upon the
foregoing, I hereby order that this allegation be withdrawn.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.21 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that
the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent
in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the
economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent
damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil
penalty of $39,700 for the first violation cited above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $39,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.616(a) by failing to provide written public education program materials to the appropriate
public officials in eleven towns in accordance with its written procedures. TGP neither contested
the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed
penalty. Having reviewed the record, I find that the assessment criteria for the Item cited above
including nature, circumstances and gravity of the violation, Respondent’s culpability, history of
prior violations, and any good faith attempts at compliance, are supported by the record.
Accordingly, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $39,700, which amount was paid in full
by wire transfer on March 15, 2018.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for the
alleged violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.616(a) and 192.706. 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. As
discussed above, Item 2 has been withdrawn. Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the
Notice for that Item are not included in this Order. 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
21 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.



CPF No. 1-2018-1001
Page 8
ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 192.616(a) (Item 1), within 60 days following
receipt of this Order, Respondent must determine the required public official
stakeholder group members for the 11 towns listed in the Notice, provide necessary
public awareness messages to those officials, and submit documentation of the
completion of this requirement to the Director.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with the required item upon a written
request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an extension.
It is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the
Director. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated
with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated
with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), 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.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
November 14, 2019
___________________________________ _________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

120181001_NOPV PCP PCO_02122018_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
OVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY
February 12, 2018
Mr. Kenneth Grubb
Chief Operating Officer
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77002
CPF 1-2018-1001
Dear Mr. Grubb:
From May 9-11, 2017, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
(CT DEEP) acting as Agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code
(U.S.C.) inspected the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company’s (TGP) records in Connecticut.
As a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected
and the probable violation(s) are:
1. § 192.616 Public Awareness.
(a) Except for an operator of a master meter or petroleum gas system covered under
paragraph (j) of this section, each pipeline operator must develop and implement a
written continuing public education program that follows the guidance provided in
the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162
(incorporated by reference, see § 192.7).
TGP failed to implement its written continuing public education program. Specifically, TGP failed
to follow its O&M 232 Procedures, Damage Prevention and Public Awareness, Revisions 2014-



CPF 1-2018-1001
01-01, 2015-07-01, 2016-06-01, 2016-09-01 (Procedures), Section 3.3, by not providing
communication materials to Local Public Officials for 11 towns between 2012 and 2017.
During the inspection, CT DEEP inspector reviewed TGP’s Procedures, and records of distribution
of communication materials to Public Officials found in the Public Awareness Contact Report,
dated 5/23/2017 (Records). The Procedures stated in part:
“3.3.1 Communication Materials
Communication materials including brochures, maps and handouts to be delivered during
corporate and field contacts that incorporate appropriate messaging for each Stakeholder Group
are included in the Public Awareness (PA) Tool Kit located on the PS website.
…
3.3.6 Public Officials
Local, state, or regional officials who are responsible for directing emergency preparedness
activities or who have land use and street/road jurisdiction within 10 miles of KM pipeline
facilities. Examples include the sub-groups listed below:
 City and county managers
 City and county council members
 Mayors
 Planning and development directors
 City and county public works directors
 State highway department district engineers
 Zoning board members
3.3.6.1 Public Officials Corporate Responsibilities:
Communication materials shall be delivered in a manner consistent with the Corporate Public
Awareness Program Appendix A Baseline Messages and Supplemental Enhanced activity
described in the Supplemental Enhanced Activities Section and Table 1 – Baseline and
Supplemental Enhanced Activities requiring a communication response. The Company shall
communicate with all Public Officials by e-mail or postal service.
For High Consequence Areas:
Communication materials shall be delivered in a manner consistent with the Corporate Public
Awareness Program Appendix A Supplemental Messages and Supplemental Enhanced activity
described in the Supplemental Enhanced Activities Section and Table 1 – Baseline and
Supplemental Enhanced Activities requiring a communication response. The Company shall
communicate with all public officials by e-mail or postal service.
…
120181001_NOPV PCP PCO_02122018_text Page 2 of 6



CPF 1-2018-1001
3.3.8 Contact Information
Audience Baseline Materials Baseline
Frequency
Supplemental Enhancement Opportunity
Public
Officials
PA Tool Kit Public
Officials
Every 3 years Local field employee contact outside 3
year requirement
”
The Records TGP provided indicated that communication materials were not distributed to Local
Public Officials in Bethany and Shelton, CT, through which TGP’s pipelines pass. The Records
also indicated that communication materials were not distributed to Local Public Officials in the
following 9 towns that TGP’s pipelines travel within 10 miles of:
 Colebrook, CT
 Cromwell, CT
 Durham, CT
 Middlefield, CT
 Middletown, CT
 Morris, CT
 Oxford, CT
 Plainville, CT
 South Windsor, CT
Therefore, TGP failed to follow its Procedures by not providing communication materials to the
Local Public Officials for 11 towns within 10 miles of their pipeline system between 2012 and
2017.
2. § 192.706 Transmission Lines: Leak surveys.
Leakage surveys of a transmission line must be conducted at intervals not exceeding
15 months, but at least once each calendar year.
TGP failed to conduct leakage surveys of a transmission line at intervals not exceeding 15 months,
but at least once each calendar year. Specifically, TGP utilized aerial vegetation leak surveys in
paved areas where vegetation survey is ineffective at detecting leaks.
During the inspection, the CT DEEP inspector reviewed TGP’s procedure for leak detection, O&M
215, Patrolling and Leak Detection, Revised 2017-02-01 (Procedure), and TGP’s records of leak
survey flights from 2015-2016 (Records). The Procedure stated in part:
“3.5 …Conduct leakage surveys by walking, driving, flying or using a water vehicle. Note
on the inspection report any construction activity, signs of erosion or sunken backfill and
dead vegetation indicating leaks.
120181001_NOPV PCP PCO_02122018_text Page 3 of 6



CPF 1-2018-1001
2. 3. For pipelines that transport gas without an odor or odorant, use continuous gas monitoring
(e.g. flame ionization, Remote Methane Leak Detector, or other leak detection equipment
approved by the Technical Services Managers) equipment when:
 Surveying Class 3 and 4 areas
 Conducting leak surveys at highway and railroad crossings”
The procedures do not prescribe TGP to use another method (e.g. leak detection device) over areas
where no vegetation is present (e.g. large paved areas, dead soil areas, etc.). The procedure
prescribes visual observation (erosion and vegetation) to conduct leak surveys in all areas except
pipelines without an odor or odorant. The procedure does not provide further instruction on how
to perform leak survey over areas where no vegetation exists.
The CT DEEP inspector observed various portions of TGP’s transmission line system that travel
under paved areas where no vegetation exists. The locations observed were:
1. 41.111581, -73.538991: High Ridge Park, Stamford
a. Large paved parking lot
41.312891, -73.047492: Hine Terrace, Derby
a. Paved parking lot and roadway
41.561615, -72.870224: Meriden Waterbury Turnpike, Southington
a. Paved parking lot
41.931458, -72.713970: Connecticut South Drive, Granby
a. Paved parking lot
The CT DEEP inspector asked TGP if other types of leak surveys were conducted at locations
where no vegetation is present. TGP stated that they do not perform any instrumented leak surveys
in these areas. The Records reviewed confirmed that these areas were leak surveyed using only
visual, aerial vegetation surveys.
Aerial vegetation survey is inadequate to perform leak surveys in areas where vegetation does not
exist, such as these paved areas. Therefore, TGP failed to conduct leak surveys at intervals not
exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year in these paved areas.
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$209,002 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,090,022 for a related
series of violations. For violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, the maximum penalty
may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,000,000
for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and
supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that
you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $39,700 as follows:
4. 120181001_NOPV PCP PCO_02122018_text Page 4 of 6



CPF 1-2018-1001
Item number PENALTY
1 $39,700
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to item(s) 1 and 2 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of
this Notice.
Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in
Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All material
you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you believe
that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C.
552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the
document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an
explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under
5 U.S.C. 552(b).
Following the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request a
hearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. 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. If you are responding to this Notice, we propose that you
submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from receipt of this Notice. This period
may be extended by written request for good cause.
Please submit all correspondence in this matter to Robert Burrough, Director, PHMSA Eastern
Region, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103, West Trenton, New Jersey 08628. Please refer to
CPF 1-2018-1001 on each document you submit, and whenever possible provide a signed PDF
copy in electronic format. Smaller files may be emailed to robert.burrough@dot.gov. Larger files
should be sent on a CD accompanied by the original paper copy to the Eastern Region Office.
Additionally, if you choose to respond to this (or any other case), please ensure that any response
letter pertains solely to one CPF case number.
Sincerely,
Robert Burrough
Director, Eastern Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
120181001_NOPV PCP PCO_02122018_text Page 5 of 6



CPF 1-2018-1001
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (TGP) a
Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of
TGP with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to § 192.616, TGP shall
determine required Public Official stakeholder group members for the 11 towns
listed and provide necessary public awareness messages within 60 days of receipt
of the Final Order.
TGP shall provide PHMSA record of the distribution of the messages in Number 1
above within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order.
In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to § 192.706, TGP shall revise
its procedures for leak survey to address methods of survey for areas where
vegetation survey is not an effective method of detecting leaks. TGP shall provide
PHMSA the revised procedures for review within 60 days of receipt of the Final
Order.
Within 60 days of PHMSA’s acceptance of the revised procedures in Number 3
above, TGP must then apply those procedures to conduct effective leak surveys for
all locations along jurisdictional pipeline segments operated by TGP where
vegetation survey is not an effective method of detecting leaks.
Upon request, TGP shall provide records indicating the completion of the leakage
surveys in Number 4 above.
It is requested (not mandated) that TGP maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the
total to Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two
categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures,
studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and
other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
120181001_NOPV PCP PCO_02122018_text Page 6 of 6

120181001_PHC Hearing Scheduled_04172018_text.pdf

April 17, 2018
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND EMAIL TO: Jessica Toll@kindermorgan.com and
robert.burrough@dot.gov
Ms. Jessica Toll, Esq.
Counsel for Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC
Kinder Morgan, Inc.
370 Van Gordon Street
Lakewood, CO 80228
Mr. Robert Burrough
Acting Director, Eastern Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103
West Trenton, NJ 08628
Re: Notice of Hearing, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC
CPF No. 1-2018-1001
Dear Ms. Toll and Mr. Burrough:
In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, an informal hearing will be held regarding the Notice of
Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order issued to Tennessee
Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. by the Office of Pipeline Safety in the above-referenced case. The
hearing will take place June 12, 2018, beginning at 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
The hearing will be at the PHMSA Eastern Region office, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103, West
Trenton, NJ 08628. Upon arrival at the building, attendees will be required to present photo
identification to security personnel. A contact phone number for the day of the hearing is (609)
989-2171.
At least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing (or by June 4, 2018), both parties must submit and
exchange any additional written materials they intend to present at the hearing and a list of
attendees. This information should be provided electronically. Materials not submitted by this date
may be excluded. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (202) 366-9093.
Sincerely,
Larry White
Presiding Official



cc: CPF No. 1-2018-1001
Page 2
Mr. Kenneth W. Grubb, Chief Operating Officer, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC,
1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000, Houston, TX 77002
Ms. Y. Ajoke Agboola, Counsel, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA

120181001_Closure Letter_11262019_text.pdf

OVERNIGHT EXPRESS
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 40929