{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320091014W","title":"MoGAS PIPELINE LLC — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2009-07-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.903, 192.905(b), 192.911(k), 192.945(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320091014w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320091014w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320091014w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320091014W","body":"Warning Letter involving MoGAS PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.903,  192.905(b),  192.911(k),  192.945(a). The case was opened on 2009-07-28 and is reported as closed as of 2009-07-28. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320091014W_Operator response_08282009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320091014W/320091014W_Operator%20response_08282009.pdf\n\n320091014W_Warning Letter_07282009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320091014W/320091014W_Warning%20Letter_07282009.pdf\n\n320091014W_Warning Letter_07282009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320091014W/320091014W_Warning%20Letter_07282009_text.pdf\n\n320091014W_Warning Letter_07282009_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJuly 28, 2009\nMr. David Wallen\nVice President\nMoGas Pipeline LLC\n110 Algana Ct.\nSt. Peters, MO 63376\nCPF 3-2009-1014W\nDear Mr. Wallen:\nOn March 19-21, 2007, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) and the Missouri Public Service Commission, pursuant to\nChapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected the MoGas Pipeline (previously Missouri\nPipeline Company [MPC]) integrity management plan and procedures in St. Peters,\nMissouri.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected\nand the probable violations are:\n§192.911 What are the elements of an integrity management program?\nAn operator's initial integrity management program begins with a framework (see\n§192.907) and evolves into a more detailed and comprehensive integrity management\nprogram, as information is gained and incorporated into the program. An operator\nmust make continual improvements to its program. The initial program framework\nand subsequent program must, at minimum, contain the following elements. (When\nindicated, refer to ASME/ANSI B31.8S (ibr, see §192.7) for more detailed information\non the listed element.)\n\n\n\n1. §192.911 (a) An identification of all high consequence areas, in accordance\nwith §192.905.\n§192.903 . . . . . High consequence area means an area established by one of the\nmethods described in paragraphs (1) or (2) as follows:\n(1) An area defined as—\n(i) A Class 3 location under §192.5; or\n(ii) A Class 4 location under §192.5; or\n(iii) Any area in a Class 1 or Class 2 location where the potential impact radius\nis greater than 660 feet (200 meters), and the area within a potential impact\ncircle contains 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy; or\n(iv) Any area in a Class 1 or Class 2 location where the potential impact circle\ncontains an identified site. . . . . .\nIdentified site means each of the following areas:\n(a) An outside area or open structure that is occupied by twenty (20) or more\npersons on at least 50 days in any twelve (12)-month period. . . . .\n(b) A building that is occupied by twenty (20) or more persons on at least five\n(5) days a week for ten (10) weeks in any twelve (12)-month period. . . . . .\n(c) A facility occupied by persons who are confined, are of impaired mobility,\nor would be difficult to evacuate.\n§192.905(b)(1) Identified sites. An operator must identify an identified site, for\npurposes of this subpart, from information the operator has obtained from\nroutine operation and maintenance activities and from public officials with\nsafety or emergency response or planning responsibilities who indicate to the\noperator that they know of locations that meet the identified site criteria.\nThese public officials could include officials on a local emergency planning\ncommission or relevant Native American tribal officials.\n(2) If a public official with safety or emergency response or planning\nresponsibilities informs an operator that it does not have the information to\nidentify an identified site, the operator must use one of the following sources,\nas appropriate, to identify these sites.\n(i) Visible marking (e.g., a sign); or\n(ii) The site is licensed or registered by a Federal, State, or local government\nagency; or\n(iii) The site is on a list (including a list on an internet web site) or map\nmaintained by or available from a Federal, State, or local government agency\nand available to the general public.\n• Item 1A: §192.903\nDuring the inspection it was noted that the building next to the Algana TBS should\nhave been considered an identified site because of its occupancy. MPC interpreted\nthe identified site definition incorrectly, which led to this error. (It is noted that a\nhigh consequence area may no longer exist near the Algana building because of\n2\n\n\n\nchanges to the pipeline MAOP). The determination of identified sites must\nconsider the likely total occupancy of a building. In the case of a commercial\nbuilding, like a bank, with potential customers inside, the total occupancy should\ninclude both employees and customers. MPC needs to take another look at\npotential identified sites along the pipeline in light of the rule requirements and the\nactual occupancy of buildings to determine if additional high consequence areas\nexist.\n• Item 1B: §192.905(b)\nPublic officials were not contacted as part of the search for identified sites. MPC\ndid not contact public officials because “a good faith effort” was made to identify\nsites through routine knowledge of the vicinity of the pipeline. This approach does\nnot meet the rule requirements.\n2. §192.911(i) A performance plan as outlined in ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 9\nthat includes performance measures meeting the requirements of §192.945.\nItem 2A: §192.945(a) General. An operator must include in its integrity\nmanagement program methods to measure, on a semi-annual basis, whether\nthe program is effective in assessing and evaluating the integrity of each\ncovered pipeline segment and in protecting the high consequence areas. These\nmeasures must include the four overall performance measures specified in\nASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see §192.7), section 9.4, and\nthe specific measures for each identified threat specified in ASME/ANSI\nB31.8S, Appendix A. An operator must submit the four overall performance\nmeasures, by electronic or other means, on a semi-annual frequency to OPS in\naccordance with §192.951. An operator must submit its first report on overall\nperformance measures by August 31, 2004. Thereafter, the performance\nmeasures must be complete through June 30 and December 31 of each year\nand must be submitted within 2 months after those dates.\nMPC reported 6/2006 IM program performance measures later than the required\ndeadline, based on information from the Gas IM Performance Measures Web site.\n3. §192.911(k) A management of change process as outlined in ASME/ANSI\nB31.8S, section 11.\nItem 3A: ASME/ANSI B31.8S Section 11(b) The operator shall recognize that\nsystem changes can require changes in the integrity management program\nand, conversely, results from the program can cause system changes. The\nfollowing are examples that are gas-pipeline specific, but are by no means all\ninclusive. . .\nMPC did not conduct an analysis of the effects on the integrity management\nprogram of the pipeline change at Algana. MPC must ensure that an analysis of the\neffects of the Wentzville pipeline relocation on integrity management is performed\n3\n\n\n\nand all future changes that could impact the integrity management program are\nanalyzed.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of\n$1,000,000 for any related series of violations. We have reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documents involved in this case, and have decided not to conduct additional\nenforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to\ncorrect the item(s) identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in MoGas Pipeline\nLLC being subject to additional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please\nrefer to CPF 3-2009-1014W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this\nenforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any\nportion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C.\n552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the\ndocument with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an\nexplanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nSincerely,\nIvan A. Huntoon\nDirector, Central Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n4","truncated":false,"body_characters":9019}