{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320031006","title":"TALLGRASS INTERSTATE GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2003-03-20","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.481, 192.605, 192.605(b), 192.619(a), 192.731(a), 192.739(d), 192.745.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320031006.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320031006.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320031006","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320031006","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TALLGRASS INTERSTATE GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.481,  192.605,  192.605(b),  192.619(a),  192.731(a),  192.739(d),  192.745. The case was opened on 2003-03-20 and is reported as closed as of 2005-05-15. Proposed civil penalty: $92,000. Assessed civil penalty: $81,250. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320031006_Final Order_05042004.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320031006/320031006_Final%20Order_05042004.pdf\n\n320031006_Final Order_05042004.pdf\n\nw\nU.S.Deporlment\nof Tronsoortotion\nReseorch ond\nSpeciol Progroms Admanistrofion\n400 Seventh St S W\nWashrngton, D.C 20590\nMAY - 4 2404\nMr. Dwalme Burton\nVice President of Gas Operations\nKinder Morgan, Inc.\nOne Allen Center\n500 Dallas Street - Suite 1000\nHouston, TX 77002\nRE: CPF No. 3-2003-1006\nDear Mr. Burton:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the\nabove-referenced case. It makes findings ofviolation and assesses a civil penaltyof $81,250. Your\nreceiptoftheFinalOrderconstitutesserviceofthatdocumentunder49C.F.R.$190.5. Atsuchtime\nthat the terms of the compliance order are completed, as determined bythe Director, Central Region,\nthis enforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that\ndocument under 49 C.F.R. $ 190.5.\nSincerely,\niln\nff*f !-\nIames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ivan Huntoon, Director, OPS Central Region\nCERTIFIED MAIL. RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELTNE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\nIn the Matter of )\nKinder Morganr Inc., )\nRespondent )\nCPF No. 3-2003-1006\nFINAL ORDER\nDuring the periods of June 12-16,June26-30, July 24-28, August 7-11, August2I-25, September\n18-22, October 2-6 and October 16-20,2000 and Apil2-6, Apil23-27, April30-May4, August ,\n13-17, August 20-24 and August2T-31,2001 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. $ 60117, representatives of the\nCentral and Western Regions, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) conducted onsite pipeline safety\ninspections ofRespondent's interstate gas transmission facilities in its Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado,\nand Wyoming operational areas. As a result ofthis investigation, the Director, Central Region, OPS,\nissued to Respondent, by letter dated March 20,2003 ,\na Notice ofProbable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. $ 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that Respondent had committed violations of 49 C.F.R.Part lgL,proposed\nassessing a total civil penalty of $92,000 for the alleged violations, and proposed that Respondent\ntake certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated, Apil 17 ,2003 (Response). Respondent did not\ncontested the allegations, but paid the proposed civil penalty, requested a hearing seeking a Consent\nOrder and clarification of some terms of the Compliance Order. The hearing was held on June 17,\n2003 in Kansas City, Missouri. After this hearing, Respondent provided a closing Response dated\nJuly 2,2003, with additional information and a summary of the information it had presented at the\nhearins.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nUncontes ted Violations\nRespondent did not contest the alleged violations of $$192.619(a),192.481,192.739, and 192.745\n(Items 3,4,6 andT) in the Notice. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R .Part I92,\nas more fully described in the Notice:\n49 C.F.R. $I92.619(a) - failure to operate a segment of steel orplastic pipeline at an\noperating pressure with the lowest pressure listed in accordance with $192.619, as\nthe regulator for pipeline #0062 the Bloomington Lateral and pipeline #0240 the\nGreeley Lateral were set above the MAOP.\n\n\n\n49 C.F.R. $192.a81(a) - failure to inspect 385 miles of Top-of-Ground pipe for\natmospheric corrosion at the required 3 year intervals.\n49 C.F.R. 5192.739 - failure to test and inspect each pressure limiting device, relief\ndevice, and pressure regulating station and its equipment at intervals not exceeding\n15 months, as the main line regulator and relief valves at Marienthal, KS, Healy, KS\nand Red Willow, KS were not set to function at the correct pressure.\n49 C.F.R. 5Lg2.745- failure to inspect and partially operate transmission line valves\nat intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. An\nexamination of the mainline valve inspection records for the years 1998,1999, and\n2000 for the Clay Center and Hastings areas revealed that inspections exceeded the\nrcnr.i*o.l i-cnanfinn infanr-l ^. -^^rr;--J L,' 8.1O', -7A<\nisliuriiru riiJpvuUUii iriisiviii a5 igqutlUu vy 3i>L.t+J.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nAs for the request for a Consent Order, Respondent explained that it viewed the Consent Order as\na vehicle to demonstrate its efforts towards continuous cooperation with OPS to ensure pipeline\nsafety and its diligence to achieve compliance. After further discussion, Respondent expressed its\nintent to comply with the Notice in all respects. Respondent advised that, based on clarifications\nreceived as to the nature of Consent Orders compared with Compliance Orders, its request for a\nConsent Order is withdrawn.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. 5 60122,Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of\nviolations. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $92,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n$ $ 1 92.6 1 9, 192.7 39\n,\nand 192.7 45, already paid by the Respondent.\n49 U.S.C. g 60122 and 49 C.F.R. S 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I considerthe following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity ofthe violation, degree\nof Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to pay the\npenalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on Respondent's\nability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.\nTheproposedpenaltyforltem3(a)is$5,000forviolationof 49 C.F.R. $192.619(a). Respondent\ndid not contest the allegations ofviolation. In its Response, during and after the hearing, Respondent\nargued that the civil penalties were excessive and inappropriate and sought clarification regarding\nassessment of the penalties. OPS representatives presented testimony as to the methodology\nemployed to assess the civil penalties. Respondent advised that it has revised its operating\nprocedures and the regulator was reset. Nevertheless, Respondent has not shown any circumstance\nthat would have prevented or justified its operating with the regulator set above the MAOP.\n\n\n\nJ\nRespondent did not present any mitigating information. Accordingly, having reviewed the record\nand considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000.\nThe proposed penalty for Item 3(b) is $5,000 for violationof 49 C.F.R. $192.619(a), as Respondent\noperated a segment of steel or plastic pipeline that exceeded the lowest pressure required by\n49 C.F.R. $195.619. Respondent did not contest the alleged violation but argued that the civil\npenalty was excessive and inappropriate and sought clarification regarding assessment ofthe penalty.\nOPS representatives presented testimony as to the methodology employed to assess the civil penalty.\nRespondent did not present any mitigating information. Accordingly, having reviewed the record\nand considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000.\nTheproposedpenaltyforltem6(a)is$3,000forviolationof49C.F.R.5lg2.73g,asthemainline\nregulator and relief valve at the Marienthal, KS was not set to function at the correct pressure.\nRespondent did not contest the alleged violation but argued that the civil penaltywas inappropriate\nand sought clarification regarding assessment of the penalty. OPS representatives presented\ntestimony as to the methodology employed to assess the civil penalty. Respondent did not present\nany mitigating information. The MAOP of the line is 135 psi, which allows the maximum\noverpressure protection set point to be 148.5psi. The Marienthal, KS relief valve was set at 155 psi.\nRespondent has not shown any circumstance that would have prevented or justified its failure to\ninspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of\npressure control equipment at the required intervals, which is essential to knowing that the pipeline\nequipment is being maintained and will function properly. Accordingly, having reviewed the record\nand considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $3,000.\nThe proposed penalty for ltem 6(b) is $ I 5,000 for violatio n of 49 C.F.R. SI92.73g,as the main line\nregulator and relief valve at Healy, KS was not set to function at the correct pressure. Respondent\ndid not contest the alleged violation but argued that the civil penaltywas inappropriate, as it was not\ncommensurate with the violation. Respondent sought clarification regarding assessment of the\npenalty. OPS representatives presented testimony as to the methodology employed to assess the civil\npenalty. Respondent did not present any mitigating information. The MAOP of the line is 250 psi,\nwhich allows the maximum overpressure protection set point to be 27 5 psi. The Healy, KS relief\nvalve was set at320 psi. Inspection and testing at the required intervals are essential to knowing that\nthe pipeline equipment is being maintained, will function properly and that the integnty of the\npipeline system is not compromised. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $ 15,000\nThe proposed penalty for Item 6(c) is $ 15,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. 1.lg2J39,as the McCook\nmain line regulator and reliefvalve at Red Willow, KS was not set to function at the correct pressure.\nRespondent did not contest the alleged violation but argued that the civil penaltywas inappropriate,\nnot commensurate with the violation and sought clarification regarding assessment of the penalty.\nOPS representatives presented testimony as to the methodology employed to assess the civil penalty.\nRespondent did not present any mitigating information. The MAOP of the line is 400 psi, which\nallows the maximum overpressure protection set point tobe 440 psi. The Red Willow, KS relief\nvalve was set at 460 psi. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $15,000.\n\n\n\n4\nThe proposed penalty for Item 7 is $49,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. i792.7 45,based on the failure\nto inspect or partially operate each transmission line valve at intervals not exceeding 1 5 months. The\nNotice further indicated that the 98 valves consisted of 25 mainline valves, 43 blowdown valves, and\n30 lateral valves. Respondent did not contest the alleged violation.\nDiscussions during the hearing revealed confusion as to the categoization of the 43 blowdown\nvalves as critical safety valves. Respondent asserted that the 43 valves in question are not critical\nsafety valves because they have bolt-on blind flanges that have to be removed before they could be\nused in an emergency. Respondent advised that it inspects the valves under the maintenance\nprogram but excludedthe 43 blowdown valves from its emergency lists.\nTestimony further revealed that discussions during previous inspections may have led Respondent\nto revise its procedures and tc allovr the categoriza+\"ionof the 4;? .rai*res to remain unchanged. OPS\nrepresentatives clarified that the 43 blowdown valves are subj ect t o $192.7 45, as an emergency could\nnecessitate the use of the 43 blowdown valves. OPS representatives further testified that\n$192.I79(c) requires blowdown valves on each section of a transmission line and that the blow down\nvalves should have enough capacity to allow the transmission line to be blown down as rapidly as\npracticable. Each blowdown discharge must be located so the gas can be blown to the atmosphere\nwithout hazard. Therefore, the 43 blowdown valves must be inspected per $192.745.\nIn an emergency, the 43 blow down valves in question maybe activated to reduce the amount of gas\nvented at the rupture or leak site on the pipeline. This would reduce the duration of the emergency\nand lessening the impact of the leaking gas on the public, property and the environment. Although,\nthe bolt-on blind flange has to be removed, where there is a line section between fwo mainline valves\nand the need arises to blow down the section quickly, the blowdown valves may be used. In an\ninstance where a home or railroad is in close proximity to the faiiure site reducing the time that it\ntakes to blow down the line is critical. The 43 blowdown valves are inspected per 5192.745.\nRespondent is to make the necessary amendments to ensure compliance and to ensure no confusion\nregarding the utilization of blowdown valves and the processes related thereto.\nRespondent did not contest the alleged violation so there is no question that a violation was\ncommitted. However, Respondent argued that the civil penalty was not commensurate with the\nviolation and sought clarification regarding assessment of the penalty. OPS representatives\npresented testimony as to the methodology employed to assess the civil penalty to address\nRespondent's argument that the civil penalty was not commensurate with the violation.\nBased upon the post hearing documentation submitted by Respondent combined with its testimony\nand that of OPS representatives, I find that factors exist for an adjustment of the proposed civil\npenalty. 49 U.S.C. S 60122 and 49 C.F.R. S 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the\ncivil penalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\ndegree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to\npay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on\nRespondent's ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.\n\n\n\n5\nThe primary objective of the Federal pipeline safety standards is safe operation of pipeline systems.\nFailure to conduct inspections at the specified intervals to find and to correct any deficiencies could\nadversely affect public safety. Testimony indicated that the valves were inspected as part of\nmaintenance but not as emergency valves. I note that the degree by which the interval was exceeded\nin 1998, 1999, and 2000 was not great. I also note that Respondent's confusion may have been based\non discussions at a prior inspection. The record suggests that the proposed civil penalty be reduced\nfrom $500 to $250 per blowdown valve. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered\nthe assessment criteria and mitigating factors, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $38,250.\nBased upon the adjustment of the civil penalty, a request has been made to the Financial Operations\nDivision, Federal Aviation Administration, to make a similar adjustment in the amount paid by\nKinder Morgan.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 3a,3b, 4a, and 6a-6c. Under\n49U.S.C.$60118(a),eachpersonwhoengagesinthetransportationofgas orwhoownsoroperates\na pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under\nchapter60l. Pursuanttotheauthorityof49U.S.C. $ 60118(b) and49 C.F.R. Sl90.2l7,Respondent\nis hereby ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety\nregulations applicable to its operations.\n1. In regards to Item 3(a), 3(b) and 6(a)-6(c) of the Notice, review the MAOP for each of your line\nsegments to determine the correct MAOP and pressure control set points for regulators and\noverpressure protection devices.\nA.\nWithin 60 days ofthe receipt ofthis Final Order, Respondent must submit aplan\nand implementation schedule to evaluate each of its line segments to determine\nthe correct MAOP and pressure control set points for regulators and\noverpressure protection devices to the Director, Central Region, OPS.\nB.\nWithin I year of the receipt of this Final Order, Respondent must complete the\nevaluation of its line segments to determine the correct MAOP and pressure\ncontrol set points for regulators and overpressure protection devices.\nC.\nSubmit documentation, records and notice of,completed actions to the Director,\nCentral Region, OPS, 901 Locust Street, Suite 462, Kansas City, MO 64106-\n2641.\n2. [n regard to Item 4(a) of the Notice, 385 miles of TOG pipe that has not been evaluated for\natmospheric corrosion :\nA.\nPerform a study to determine areas of atmospheric corrosion and establish\ncontinuing program to inspect TOG pipe for atmospheric corrosion.\n\n\n\nB. Within 60 days of the receipt of this Final Order, Respondent must submit a\nplan and implementation schedule for the study of areas of atmospheric\ncorrosion.\nC.\nInspect and remediate any findings of active corrosion on your ToG pipe in the\nregion in increments. The inspection and remediation shall be complete within\nthree (3) years of receipt of this Final Order.\nD.\nSubmit documentation, records and notice of completed actions to the\nDirector, Central Region, OPS, 901 Locust Street, Suite 462, Kansas City,\nMO 64106-264r.\n3. The Director, Central Region may grant an extension of time for compliance with any of the\nterms of this order for good cause. A request for an extension must be in writing.\nWARNING ITEMS\nThe Notice did not propose any civil penalties or compliance actions with respect to the following\nitems; therefore, Respondent is warned that if it does not take appropriate corrective action to\naddress these items and OPS finds a violation in a subsequent inspection, enforcement action will\nbe taken.\nItem I in the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to follow'maintenance procedures to annually\ninspect five fire extinguishers at the Holdrege Compressor Station, as required by 49 C.F.R.\n$ 1e2.60s.\nItem 2a in the Notice alleged inadequacies in Respondent's Operations, Maintenance and\nEmergencies Manual, as it incorrectly listed the MAOP for pipeline #0018, NE/KS State line to\nHoldrege, as 800 psi. The correct MAOP is 795 psi.\nItem 2b in the Notice alleged inadequacies in Respondent's Operations, Maintenance and\nEmergencies Manual, as it incorrectly listed the MAOP for pipeline #0063, the Franklin Lateral, as\n656 psi. The correct MAOP is 505 psi.\nItem 5 in the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to test and inspect the relief device for the\nGuernsey Compressor Station, unit #3003, within the required 15 months interval, in accordance\nwith 49 c.F.R. 5 192.731.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. $ 190.215, Respondent has a right to petition for reconsideration of this Final\nOrder. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this Final Order and\nmust contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition automatically stays the\npayment of any civil penalty assessed. All other terms of the order, including any required corrective\n\n\n\n1\naction, shall remain in full effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon receipt.\nFailure to comply with any aspect of this Final Order may result in the assessment of civil penalties\nof up to $100,000 per violation per day, or in the referral of the case for judicial enforcement.\nMAY - 4 2004\nDate Issued\niate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":19940}