# SOUTHERN STAR CENTRAL GAS PIPELINE, INC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 320081005
- **title:** SOUTHERN STAR CENTRAL GAS PIPELINE, INC — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2008-12-12
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.203(b)(9), 192.227(a), 192.625, 192.751.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320081005.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320081005.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320081005
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320081005
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving SOUTHERN STAR CENTRAL GAS PIPELINE, INC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.203(b)(9),  192.227(a),  192.625,  192.751. The case was opened on 2008-12-12 and is reported as closed as of 2011-10-21. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

320081005_ Final Order_10212011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320081005/320081005_%20Final%20Order_10212011_text.pdf

320081005_Final Order_10212011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320081005/320081005_Final%20Order_10212011.pdf

320081005_NOPV PCO_12122008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320081005/320081005_NOPV%20PCO_12122008.pdf

320081005_nopv pco_12122008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320081005/320081005_nopv%20pco_12122008_text.pdf

320081005_Operator_Response_and_Request_for_Hearing_01052009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320081005/320081005_Operator_Response_and_Request_for_Hearing_01052009.pdf

320081005_ Final Order_10212011_text.pdf

OCT 21 2011
Mr. Robert S. Bahnick
Senior Vice President
Operations and Technical Services
Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
4700 Highway 56
P.O. Box 20010
Owensboro, Kentucky 42301
RE: CPF No. 3-2008-1005
Dear Mr. Bahnick:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws one
allegation of violation and issues a warning to Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., with
respect to three other alleged violations. This case is now closed. Service of the Final Order by
certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, Pipeline Safety
Mr. Dave Barrett, Central Region Director, PHMSA
CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0075 9633]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., ) CPF No. 3-2008-1005
)
Respondent. )
___________________________________ )
FINAL ORDER
From June to August 2008, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of 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 the Welda Unit, a
natural gas pipeline system operated by Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star
or Respondent), a subsidiary of Southern Star Central Corporation, in the State of Kansas.
1
As a result of that inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Southern
Star, by letter dated December 12, 2008, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed
Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed
finding that Southern Star had violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625. The Notice also proposed ordering
Respondent to take certain measures to correct one of the alleged violations, and warning
Respondent to take appropriate corrective action or be subject to future enforcement action.
Southern Star responded to the Notice by letter dated January 5, 2009 (Response). Respondent
contested one of the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and
requested a hearing. A hearing was subsequently held on April 22, 2009, at the PHMSA Central
Region Office in Kansas City, Missouri, with an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel,
PHMSA, presiding. After the hearing, Southern Star submitted a Post-Hearing Brief, dated
April 30, 2009 (Brief), and additional evidence for the record.
1 The Welda Unit is part of Southern Star’s 6,000-mile network of natural gas pipelines and related facilities in the
Midwest, including Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Colorado, Texas, and Oklahoma.
http://www.sscgp.com/aboutus (last accessed August 5, 2010).



2
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Southern Star violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625, which states, in
relevant part:
§ 192.625 Odorization of gas.
(a) A combustible gas . . . must contain a natural
odorant or be odorized so that at a concentration in air of one-fifth of the
lower explosive limit, the gas is readily detectable by a person with a
normal sense of smell.
(b) After December 31, 1976, a combustible gas in a transmission line
in a Class 3 or Class 4 location must comply with the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section unless:
(1) At least 50 percent of the length of the line downstream from that
location is in a Class 1 or Class 2 location;
(2) . . . .
(3) In the case of a lateral line which transports gas to a distribution
center, at least 50 percent of the length of that line is in a Class 1 or Class
2 location;
The Notice alleged that Southern Star violated § 192.625(b) by failing to odorize the natural gas
in a transmission line in the Welda Unit. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent had
not injected any odorant into the DW-003 “lateral line,
” a 1.83-mile pipeline segment in a Class
3 location. The Notice further stated that less than 50% of the length of that line was in a Class 1
or Class 2 location; therefore, the exception in § 192.625(b)(3) did not apply.
In its Response, Southern Star contested the alleged violation, arguing that the exception in
§ 192.625(b)(3) applied to the DW-003.
April 2009 Hearing
Two witnesses testified on Southern Star’s behalf at that hearing: Mr. David Sinclair, the
company’s Manager of Pipeline Compliance, and Mr. John S. Zurcher, an independent
consultant and the author of a report, entitled “Report on the Requirements to Conduct
Odorization of Gas,” which Southern Star had used as foundation for its odorization program
(Zurcher Report). OPS offered the testimony of Mr. Ivan Huntoon, the former Director of the
Central Region, PHMSA, and Mr. Hans Shieh, the OPS employee who had performed the
inspection of the Welda Unit.
Mr. Sinclair testified that, in his view, the DW-003 lateral line did not require odorant under
§ 192.625(b)(3). He noted that his position was consistent with the opinions rendered in the
Zurcher Report, and bolstered by the fact that the DW-003 line connects with another pipeline
not owned or operated by Southern Star, which transports natural gas for several more miles
downstream before reaching a distribution center. Mr. Sinclair also stated that the sole reason
for the odorization requirement was leak detection, and that this objective could be accomplished
on transmission lines without using odorant, e.g., by performing periodic leak surveys and
relying on the public’s ability to see and hear leaks.



3
Mr. Zurcher’s testimony focused on several alleged inadequacies in the odorization regulation
and OPS’s application of that regulation to the DW-003 line. Specifically, he testified that (1)
there was no definition for “lateral line” or “distribution center” in 49 C.F.R. Part 192; (2) the
DW-003 line did not terminate at a distribution center; (3) OPS used the term “branch line” in
the compliance order portion of the Notice, which was also not defined in 49 C.F.R. Part 192; (4)
odorization was not the only means of detecting natural gas leaks on transmission lines; (5)
PHMSA had never established a clear policy on applying the odorization requirement; (6) OPS’s
interpretation was impracticable and unduly expensive; and (7) PHMSA’s various Regional
Offices would not be capable of consistently applying such an interpretation.
Mr. Zurcher also discussed the methodology used in his report. He explained that he had defined
a lateral line in that report as:
[A] transmission line that branches off a main line or another lateral line to
connect a gathering system or source of supply; or which connects a main line or
another lateral line to a distribution center, or a direct connect to an end user not
connected to a distribution center. A lateral line does not have compression other
than for peak shaving or other temporary purposes and in no case does the
compression operate more than 45 days per year. A lateral line extends beyond
the limits of a circle with a radius of 300 feet, from the point where it ties into a
main line or other lateral line.2
Mr. Zurcher then described how his interpretation of the odorization requirement would apply to
three hypothetical pipeline systems, concluding in each instance that odorant would not be
required. He also sought to demonstrate the impracticability of OPS’s position by applying it to
five theoretical modifications of the pipelines in the Welda Unit.
Mr. Huntoon, the former Director of the Central Region, defended the violation as alleged in the
Notice. He also questioned some of the assumptions in the Zurcher Report, particularly the
author’s conclusions that the odorization regulation should be applied at the farthest possible
point upstream and that a lateral line should be defined so as to maximize the number of covered
pipeline segments. The Director stated that, in his view, public safety required that the
odorization regulation be applied to a natural gas pipeline system in a far more conservative
matter, i.e., from the farthest possible point downstream, on a lateral-by-lateral basis. Counsel
for OPS also noted that the Pipeline Glossary on PHMSA’s website included a definition for the
term lateral: “a segment of a pipeline that branches off the main or transmission line to a tank
line or metering station.”3
2 Mr. Zurcher noted that his definition of lateral line sought to draw a distinction between the terms “main line” and
“lateral line,” both of which are considered “transmission lines” under Part 192. He also stated that he used the term
“distribution system” instead of “distribution center,” a term not defined in Part 192, to “add clarity of intent.” Mr.
Zurcher explained that his definition “helps to clarify the difference between main line and lateral line.” Finally, he
stated that he “added a measurable length” of 300 feet (the smallest distance used in 49 C.F.R. § 192.5 to determine
a Class Location) to the last part of his definition to exclude taps from being considered as lateral lines.
3 PHMSA Pipeline Safety Program, Stakeholder Communications, Pipeline Glossary,
http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/glossary/index.htm?nocache=7616#Lateral (last accessed July 30, 2009).



4
Post-Hearing Brief
In its Brief, Southern Star stated that its dispute with OPS was “much larger than that [of] one
lateral.”4 According to Respondent, “[i]t [wa]s the very definition of lateral, or rather the LACK
of definition in the regulations [sic] of lateral, that [wa]s the significant issue.”5
To prove its point, Southern Star criticized the Pipeline Glossary’s definition of a lateral, stating
that it “seem[ed] to apply MORE to liquid lines than to natural gas lines,
” that it “appear[ed]
NOT in the regulations but in the [PHMSA] Glossary, [which was] generally adapted for the
general public as informational,
” and that it was on a website that is “generally [not] reviewed by
the industry, particularly in these matters.”6 Accordingly, Southern Star argued that using the
Pipeline Glossary definition as a point of reference would be “inequitable . . . given its less than
even qualify as a lateral under the Pipeline Glossary’s definition, because it did not terminate at a
public knowledge of availability.”7 Respondent further noted that the DW-003 line would not
distribution center or metering station.
Southern Star also stated that the DW-003 line would not need to be odorized under the
American Gas Association’s definition of a lateral, “a pipe in a . . . transmission system which
branches away from the central and primary part of the system.
”8 Southern Star further
explained that its decision not to odorize the DW-003 was “consistent with the express intent of
OPS” in adopting the (b)(3) lateral exception, namely,
“to avoid odorization costs for certain
segments of pipe.
”9
In closing, Southern Star argued that “it ha[d] been painted as a probable violator when, in fact, it
ha[d] gone above what many have done in attempting to garner outside help in interpreting the
applicable regulations.
”10 Respondent, therefore, requested that Item 3 of the Notice be
withdrawn.11
4 Post-Hearing Brief at 2.
5 Id.
6 Id. at 3.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 4.
10 Id. at 6.
11 Southern Star also requested that PHMSA initiate a new rulemaking proceeding to repeal and replace the current
odorization regulation. If Southern Star wishes to obtain further action on that request, it must file a petition for
rulemaking under 49 C.F.R. § 190.331.



5
Analysis
Because the release of a combustible gas is a risk to public safety, particularly in populated areas,
§ 192.625(b) requires that transmission lines in Class 3 or Class 4 locations contain a natural
odorant or be odorized. However, odorant is not required if “[a]t least 50 percent of the length of
the line downstream from that location is in a Class 1 or Class 2 location.” Odorant is also not
required “in the case of a lateral line which transports gas to a distribution center,” if “at least 50
percent of the length of that line is in a Class 1 or Class 2 location.”
After the record closed in this case, I issued a decision that clarified the scope of the latter
exception. Specifically, I found that a lateral line is a pipeline segment which terminates at a
distribution center and originates at the first upstream connection with another transmission
line.12 I also provided the following illustration of that determination:
Figure 1: Identification of laterals for purposes of § 192.625(b)(3).
Consistent with that decision and contrary to Respondent’s contentions, § 192.625(b)(3) is not
designed so that successive segments of pipeline can be operated without odorant. It is meant to
ensure that certain “short” pipeline segments—i.e., those near the end of transmission lines in
predominantly rural areas—are not subject to that requirement.
13
It should also be noted that
12 In the Matter of ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), Final Order, CPF No. 3-2007-1006, p. 7 (Dec. 4, 2009), aff’d by
Decision on Petition for Reconsideration, CPF No. 3-2007-1006, pp. 4-12 (Dec. 30, 2010) (available at
www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).
13 In the preamble to the final rule that adopted the odorization regulation, PHMSA included the following relevant
discussion on the intent of the lateral-line exception:
Another problem raised by commenters is that most lateral transmission lines serving distribution
centers from interstate transmission lines are predominantly in Class 1 or Class 2 locations. In
these cases, the terminal portion of a lateral line generally lies in a Class 3 or Class 4 location and



6
PHMSA’s predecessor agency considered, and rejected, all of Southern Star’s arguments about
the need to use odorant as a leak detection measure in transmissions lines more than 30 years
ago,
14 and that the Zurcher Report’s definition of a lateral line also incorporates a number of
factors and other criteria that are not listed in the odorization regulation, including the use of
compression, number of operating days, and a minimum-length requirement.
15
Nevertheless, the evidence of record is not sufficient to sustain the allegation of violation.
apply the lateral line exception in § 192.625(b)(3), the record must contain information about the
distance and class location(s) from the distribution center to the first upstream connection. Only
part of that information is available in this case. Specifically, the record indicates that the DW-
003 is a 1.83-mile pipeline segment situated entirely in a Class 3 location. It also indicates that
16 To
under the proposed rule would be subject to the odorization requirement. Because in most cases
the segment of line to be odorized is short, commenters argued that the cost of installing and
operating odorizers would far exceed the safety benefit. OPS agrees with these comments. The
final rule, therefore, in § 192.625(b)(3) exempts odorization of gas in a transmission line used in
transporting gas to a distribution center if 50 percent or more of the line is in a Class 1 or Class 2
location.
Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, Odorization of Gas in Transmission Lines, 40 Fed. Reg.
20279, 20281 (May 9, 1975).
14 In an August 1973 notice of proposed rulemaking, OPS cited the results of a recently-completed study and stated
that:
In the transmission lines of those operators who odorize gas, a number of leaks have been located
through odorization. The fact of such results refutes any contentions that odorization is
appropriate only for distribution mains and service lines and that high pressure leaks are detectable
only by other means. Odorization allows the early detection of leaks and does not limit detection
to company employees. In a number of cases, odorization led to discovery of leaks that would not
have been disclosed until later by the means normally used.
Office of Pipeline Safety, Gas in Transmission Lines, Odorization Requirements, 38 Fed. Reg. 22044 (Aug. 15,
1973). Similarly, in a May 1975 final rule, OPS noted that some “commenters restated conventional opinions that
odorization does not enhance the detection of leaks in transmission lines and that normal odorization is ineffective in
open air.” Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, Odorization of Gas in Transmission Lines, 40
Fed. Reg. 20279, 20280 (May 9, 1975). OPS responded by stating that “[o]n these latter points, . . . the record is
clear—a large number of gas leaks, including leaks on transmission lines, have been detected by people smelling
odorant in open air.” Id.
15 Southern Star’s lack of ownership or control over the downstream pipeline segment that actually terminates at the
distribution center is not relevant to whether the DW-003 must be odorized. See Ross Marsh Foster Myers &
Quiggle, #PI-91-038 (Dec. 26, 1991) (available at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/interps) (noting that non-
ownership of pressure control devices does not excuse a regulated pipeline operator’s responsibility for complying
with Parts 192 and 195).
16 OPS bears the burden of proof in an enforcement action and must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
all of the elements of a violation exist. In the Matter of Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., Decision on Reconsideration,
CPF No. 5-2005-5023, p. 4-5 (Dec. 16, 2009); In the Matter of Butte Pipeline Co., Final Order, CPF No. 5-2007-
5008, p. 2, n. 3 (Aug. 17, 2009)
(http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/documents/520075008/520075008_Final%20Order_08172009.p
df?nocache=1644; see Schaeffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 56-58 (2005).



7
the DW-003 connects with another pipeline that transports gas to a distribution center, but does
not contain any specific information about length and class location(s) of that downstream line.
Without such information, a determination cannot be made as to whether or not the DW-003 line
is part of a “lateral line” and, if so, whether the DW-003 must be odorized under 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.625(b)(3). Accordingly, I am withdrawing Item 3 of the Notice and the Compliance Order
without prejudice.
WARNING ITEMS
With respect to Items 1, 2, and 4, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192, but did not
propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to
be warning items. The warnings were for:
49 C.F.R. § 192.203 (Item 1) — Southern Star installed its fuel gas regulators at
the Hugoton, Ottawa, and Americus compressor stations in a manner that
permitted the control lines for the operator and monitor to be on the same
pressure-sensing tap, thereby failing to protect each control line from anticipated
causes of damage.
49 C.F.R. § 192.227 (Item 2) — In 2004, Southern Star failed to follow the
requirements for properly testing and qualifying a welder under API 1104.
49 C.F.R. § 192.751 (Item 4) — Southern Star failed to properly remove a
potential ignition source from the inside of a town border station.
Southern Star presented information in its Response indicating that it had taken certain actions to
address these warning items. Having considered that information, I find, pursuant to 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.205, that probable violations of Part 192 occurred as of the date of the inspection, and that
Respondent has corrected such conditions. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a
subsequent inspection, Southern Star may be subject to future enforcement action.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a petition for reconsideration of
this Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent’s receipt of this
Final Order, contain a brief statement of the issue(s), and meet all other requirements of 49
C.F.R. § 190.215. The terms of the Final Order, including any required corrective action, shall
remain in full force and effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be effective upon receipt.
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

320081005_Final Order_10212011.pdf

U.S. Department
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE
of Transportation
Washington, DC 20590
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
OCT 21 2011
Mr. Robert S. Bahnick
Senior Vice President
Operations and Technical Services
Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
4700 Highway 56
P.O. Box 20010
Owensboro, Kentucky 42301
RE: CPF No. 3-2008-1005
Dear Mr. Bahnick:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws one
allegation of violation and issues a warning to Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., with
respect to three other alleged violations. This case is now closed. Service of the Final Order by
certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49
C.F.R. § 190.5
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, Pipeline Safety
Mr. Dave Barrett, Central Region Director, PHMSA
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED /7005 1160 0001 0075 9633]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.,)
CPF No. 3-2008-1005
Respondent.
)
_)
FINAL ORDER
From June to August 2008, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of 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 the Welda Unit, a
natural gas pipeline system operated by Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star
or Respondent), a subsidiary of Southern Star Central Corporation, in the State of Kansas.'
As a result of that inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Southern
Star, by letter dated December 12, 2008, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed
Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed
finding that Southern Star had violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625. The Notice also proposed ordering
Respondent to take certain measures to correct one of the alleged violations, and warning
Respondent to take appropriate corrective action or be subject to future enforcement action.
Southern Star responded to the Notice by letter dated January 5, 2009 (Response). Respondent
contested one of the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and
requested a hearing. A hearing was subsequently held on April 22, 2009, at the PHMSA Central
Region Office in Kansas City, Missouri, with an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel,
PHMSA, presiding. After the hearing, Southern Star submitted a Post-Hearing Brief, dated
April 30, 2009 (Brief), and additional evidence for the record.
'The Welda Unit is part of Southern Star's 6,000-mile network of natural gas pipelines and related facilities in the
Midwest, including Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Colorado, Texas, and Oklahoma.
http://www.sscgp.com/aboutus (last accessed August 5, 2010).



2
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Southern Star violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625, which states, in
relevant part:
§ 192.625 Odorization of gas.
(a) A combustible gas ... must contain a natural
odorant or be odorized so that at a concentration in air of one-fifth of the
lower explosive limit, the gas is readily detectable by a person with a
normal sense of smell.
(b) After December 31, 1976, a combustible gas in a transmission line
in a Class 3 or Class 4 location must comply with the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section unless:
(1) At least 50 percent of the length of the line downstream from that
location is in a Class 1 or Class 2 location;
(2)....
(3) In the case of a lateral line which transports gas to a distribution
center, at least 50 percent of the length of that line is in a Class 1 or Class
2 location;
The Notice alleged that Southern Star violated § 192.625(b) by failing to odorize the natural gas
in a transmission line in the Welda Unit. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent had
not injected any odorant into the DW-003 "lateral line," a 1.83-mile pipeline segment in a Class
3 location. The Notice further stated that less than 50% of the length of that line was in a Class 1
or Class 2 location; therefore, the exception in § 192.625(b)(3) did not apply.
In its Response, Southern Star contested the alleged violation, arguing that the exception in
§ 192.625(b)(3) applied to the DW-003.
April 2009 Hearing
Two witnesses testified on Southern Star's behalf at that hearing: Mr. David Sinclair, the
company's Manager of Pipeline Compliance, and Mr. John S. Zurcher, an independent
consultant and the author of a report, entitled "Report on the Requirements to Conduct
Odorization of Gas," which Southern Star had used as foundation for its odorization program
(Zurcher Report). OPS offered the testimony of Mr. Ivan Huntoon, the former Director of the
Central Region, PHMSA, and Mr. Hans Shieh, the OPS employee who had performed the
inspection of the Welda Unit.
Mr. Sinclair testified that, in his view, the DW-003 lateral line did not require odorant under
§ 192.625(b)(3). He noted that his position was consistent with the opinions rendered in the
Zurcher Report, and bolstered by the fact that the DW-003 line connects with another pipeline
not owned or operated by Southern Star, which transports natural gas for several more miles
downstream before reaching a distribution center. Mr. Sinclair also stated that the sole reason
for the odorization requirement was leak detection, and that this objective could be accomplished
on transmission lines without using odorant, e.g., by performing periodic leak surveys and
relying on the public's ability to see and hear leaks.



3
Mr. Zurcher's testimony focused on several alleged inadequacies in the odorization regulation
and OPS's application of that regulation to the DW-003 line. Specifically, he testified that (1)
there was no definition for "lateral line" or "distribution center" in 49 C.F.R. Part 192; (2) the
DW-003 line did not terminate at a distribution center; (3) OPS used the term "branch line" in
the compliance order portion of the Notice, which was also not defined in 49 C.F.R. Part 192; (4)
odorization was not the only means of detecting natural gas leaks on transmission lines; (5)
PHMSA had never established a clear policy on applying the odorization requirement; (6) OPS's
interpretation was impracticable and unduly expensive; and (7) PHMSA's various Regional
Offices would not be capable of consistently applying such an interpretation.
Mr. Zurcher also discussed the methodology used in his report. He explained that he had defined
a lateral line in that report as:
[A] transmission line that branches off a main line or another lateral line to
connect a gathering system or source of supply; or which connects a main line or
another lateral line to a distribution center, or a direct connect to an end user not
connected to a distribution center. A lateral line does not have compression other
than for peak shaving or other temporary purposes and in no case does the
compression operate more than 45 days per year. A lateral line extends beyond
the limits of a circle with a radius of 300 feet, from the point where it ties into a
main line or other lateral line.'
Mr. Zurcher then described how his interpretation of the odorization requirement would apply to
three hypothetical pipeline systems, concluding in each instance that odorant would not be
required. He also sought to demonstrate the impracticability of OPS's position by applying it to
five theoretical modifications of the pipelines in the Welda Unit.
Mr. Huntoon, the former Director of the Central Region, defended the violation as alleged in the
Notice. He also questioned some of the assumptions in the Zurcher Report, particularly the
author's conclusions that the odorization regulation should be applied at the farthest possible
point upstream and that a lateral line should be defined so as to maximize the number of covered
pipeline segments. The Director stated that, in his view, public safety required that the
odorization regulation be applied to a natural gas pipeline system in a far more conservative
matter, i.e., from the farthest possible point downstream, on a lateral-by-lateral basis. Counsel
for OPS also noted that the Pipeline Glossary on PHMSA's website included a definition for the
term lateral: "a segment of a pipeline that branches off the main or transmission line to a tank
line or metering station. "3
- Mr. Zurcher noted that his definition of lateral line sought to draw a distinction between the terms "main line" and
"distribution system" instead of "distribution center," a term not defined in Part 192, to "add clarity of intent." Mr.
"lateral line," both of which are considered "transmission lines" under Part 192. He also stated that he used the term
stated that he "added a measurable length" of 300 feet (the smallest distance used in 49 C.F.R. § 192.5 to determine
Zurcher explained that his definition "helps to clarify the difference between main line and lateral line." Finally, he
a Class Location) to the last part of his definition to exclude taps from being considered as lateral lines.
3 PHMSA Pipeline Safety Program, Stakeholder Communications, Pipeline Glossary,
http://primis.phmsa.clot.gov/comm/glossary/index.htm?nocache=7616#Lateral (last accessed July 30, 2009).



4
Post-Hearing Brief
In its Brief, Southern Star stated that its dispute with OPS was "much larger than that [of] one
lateral."* According to Respondent, "lilt [wals the very definition of lateral, or rather the LACK
of definition in the regulations [sic] of lateral, that [wals the significant issue."S
To prove its point, Southern Star criticized the Pipeline Glossary's definition of a lateral, stating
that it "seem|ed] to apply MORE to liquid lines than to natural gas lines," that it "appear[ed]
NOT in the regulations but in the [PHMSA] Glossary, [which was] generally adapted for the
general public as informational," and that it was on a website that is "generally [not] reviewed by
the industry, particularly in these matters." Accordingly, Southern Star argued that using the
Pipeline Glossary definition as a point of reference would be inequitable ... given its less than
public knowledge of availability." Respondent further noted that the DW-003 line would not
even qualify as a lateral under the Pipeline Glossary's definition, because it did not terminate at a
distribution center or metering station.
Southern Star also stated that the DW-003 line would not need to be odorized under the
American Gas Association's definition of a lateral, "a pipe in a ... transmission system whict
ranches away from the central and primary part of the system.
Southern Star further
explained that its decision not to odorize the DW-003 was "consistent with the express intent of
OPS" in adopting the (b)(3) lateral exception, namely, "to avoid odorization costs for certain
segments of pipe.")
In closing, Southern Star argued that "it ha[d] been painted as a probable violator when, in fact, it
applicable regulations."'° Respondent, therefore, requested that Item 3 of the Notice be
ha[d] gone above what many have done in attempting to garner outside help in interpreting the
withdrawn.
* Post-Hearing Brief at 2.
SId.
Id. at 3.
Id. at 4.
10 Id. at 6.
" Southern Star also requested that PHMSA initiate a new rulemaking proceeding to repeal and replace the current
odorization regulation. If Southern Star wishes to obtain further action on that request, it must file a petition for
rulemaking under 49 C.F.R. § 190.331.



5
Analysis
Because the release of a combustible gas is a risk to public safety, particularly in populated areas,
§ 192.625(b) requires that transmission lines in Class 3 or Class 4 locations contain a natural
odorant or be odorized. However, odorant is not required if "[a]t least 50 percent of the length of
the line downstream from that location is in a Class 1 or Class 2 location." Odorant is also not
required "in the case of a lateral line which transports gas to a distribution center," if "at least 50
percent of the length of that line is in a Class 1 or Class 2 location."
After the record closed in this case, I issued a decision that clarified the scope of the latter
exception. Specifically, I found that a lateral line is a pipeline segment which terminates at a
distribution center and originates at the first upstream connection with another transmission
line.
!? Lalso provided the following illustration of that determination:
Figure I: Identification of laterals for purposes of § 192.625(b)(3).
..• Lateral transmission
- Transmission (non-lateral)
Distribution Center
Distribution Center
Distribution Center
F
E
G
Lateral system
Distribution Center
H
Transmission Pipeline
Consistent with that decision and contrary to Respondent's contentions, § 192.625(b)(3) is not
designed so that successive segments of pipeline can be operated without odorant. It is meant to
ensure that cerain short" pipeline segmet it reuse men the in hotdaso be interes at
12 In the Matter of ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), Final Order, CPF No. 3-2007-1006, p. 7 (Dec. 4, 2009), aff'd by
Decision on Petition for Reconsideration, CPF No. 3-2007-1006, pp. 4-12 (Dec. 30. 2010) (available at
www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).
1? In the preamble to the final rule that adopted the odorization regulation, PHMSA included the following relevant
discussion on the intent of the lateral-line exception:
centers from interstate transmission lines are predominantly in Class 1 or Class 2 locations. In
Another problem raised by commenters is that most lateral transmission lines serving distribution
these cases. the terminal portion of a lateral line generally lies in a Class 3 or Class 4 location and



6
PHMSA's predecessor agency considered, and rejected, all of Southern Star's arguments about
the need to use odorant as a leak detection measure in transmissions lines more than 30 years
and that the Zurcher Report's definition of a lateral line also incorporates a number of
factors and other criteria that are not listed in the odorization regulation, including the use of
compression, number of operating days, and a minimum-length requirement.!5
Nevertheless, the evidence of record is not sufficient to sustain the allegation of violation.! To
apply the lateral line exception in § 192.625(b)(3), the record must contain information about the
distance and class location(s) from the distribution center to the first upstream connection. Only
part of that information is available in this case. Specifically, the record indicates that the DW-
003 is a 1.83-mile pipeline segment situated entirely in a Class 3 location. It also indicates that
under the proposed rule would be subject to the odorization requirement. Because in most cases
operating odorizers would far exceed the safety benefit. OPS agrees with these comments. The
the segment of line to be odorized is short, commenters argued that the cost of installing and
transporting gas to a distribution center if 50 percent or more of the line is in a Class 1 or Class 2
final rule, therefore, in § 192.625(b)(3) exempts odorization of gas in a transmission line used in
location.
Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, Odorization of Gas in Transmission Lines, 40 Fed. Reg.
20279, 20281 (May 9, 1975).
14 In an August 1973 notice of proposed rulemaking, OPS cited the results of a recently-completed study and stated
that:
In the transmission lines of those operators who odorize gas, a number of leaks have been located
appropriate only for distribution mains and service lines and that high pressure leaks are detectable
through odorization. The fact of such results refutes any contentions that odorization is
to company employees. In a number of cases, odorization led to discovery of leaks that would not
only by other means. Odorization allows the early detection of leaks and does not limit detection
have been disclosed until later by the means normally used.
1973). Similarly, in a May 1975 final rule, OPS noted that some "commenters restated conventional opinions that
Office of Pipeline Safety, Gas in Transmission Lines, Odorization Requirements, 38 Fed. Reg. 22044 (Aug. 15,
odorization does not enhance the detection of leaks in transmission lines and that normal odorization is ineffective in
open air." Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, Odorization of Gas in Transmission Lines, 40
Fed. Reg. 20279, 20280 (May 9, 1975). OPS responded by stating that "o]n these latter points, ... the record is
clear—a large number of gas leaks, including leaks on transmission lines, have been detected by people smelling
odorant in open air." Id.
IS Southern Star's lack of ownership or control over the downstream pipeline segment that actually terminates at the
distribution center is not relevant to whether the DW-003 must be odorized. See Ross Marsh Foster Myers &
Quiggle, #PI-91-038 (Dec. 26, 1991) (available at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/interps) (noting that non-
ownership of pressure control devices does not excuse a regulated pipeline operator's responsibility for complying
with Parts 192 and 195).
16 OPS bears the burden of proof in an enforcement action and must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
all of the elements of a violation exist. In the Matter of Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., Decision on Reconsideration,
CPF No. 5-2005-5023, p. 4-5 (Dec. 16, 2009); In the Matter of Butte Pipeline Co., Final Order, CPF No. 5-2007-
(http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/documents/520075008/520075008_Final/20Order_08172009.p
5008, p. 2, n. 3 (Aug. 17, 2009)
df?nocache= 1644; see Schaeffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 56-58 (2005).



7
the DW-003 connects with another pipeline that transports gas to a distribution center, but does
not contain any specific information about length and class location(s) of that downstream line.
Without such information, a determination cannot be made as to whether or not the DW-003 line
is part of a "lateral line" and, if so, whether the DW-003 must b
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 42125