{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320101004","title":"MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2010-09-27","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 191.15(a), 191.5(a), 192.227(b), 192.743(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320101004.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320101004.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320101004","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320101004","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving MIDWESTERN GAS TRANSMISSION CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 191.15(a),  191.5(a),  192.227(b),  192.743(b). The case was opened on 2010-09-27 and is reported as closed as of 2011-09-30. Proposed civil penalty: $40,000. Assessed civil penalty: $40,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320101004_Final Order_08112011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320101004/320101004_Final%20Order_08112011.pdf\n\n320101004_Final Order_08112011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320101004/320101004_Final%20Order_08112011_text.pdf\n\n320101004_NOPV PCP_09272010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320101004/320101004_NOPV%20PCP_09272010.pdf\n\n320101004_NOPV PCP_09272010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320101004/320101004_NOPV%20PCP_09272010_text.pdf\n\n320101004_Operator Response NOPV PCP_10282010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320101004/320101004_Operator%20Response%20NOPV%20PCP_10282010.pdf\n\n320101004_Opr Response NOPV PCP_10282010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320101004/320101004_Opr%20Response%20NOPV%20PCP_10282010.pdf\n\n320101004_Final Order_08112011_text.pdf\n\nAUG 11 2011\nMr. Michel E. Nelson\nSenior Vice President, Natural Gas Pipeline Operations\nMidwestern Gas Transmission Company\n100 West Fifth Street\nTulsa, OK 74103\nRe: CPF No. 3-2010-1004\nDear Mr. Nelson:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $40,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the\nFinal Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of\nthe Final Order by certified mail is complete upon mailing as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, Pipeline Safety\nMr. David Barrett, Director, Central Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [ 7005 1160 0001 0070 4060]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n_____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nMidwestern Gas Transmission Company, ) CPF No. 3-2010-1004\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n_____________________________________ )\nFINAL ORDER\nOn May 18–22, 2009, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Midwestern Gas\nTransmission Company (MGT or Respondent) in Channahon, Illinois. The MGT pipeline\nsystem is approximately 370 miles in length and is located in Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky.1\nMGT is a subsidiary of ONEOK Partners, L.P.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated September 27, 2010, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty\n(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that MGT\ncommitted violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 191.5 and 191.15 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of\n$40,000 for the alleged violations. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, the Notice also\nincluded several warning items, which advised Respondent to correct certain probable violations.\nMGT responded to the Notice by letter dated October 28, 2010 (Response). The company did\nnot contest the violations but provided an explanation and requested the proposed civil penalty\nbe reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived the right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, MGT did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part\n191, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.5(a), which, in 2008, stated\nas follows:\n1 This information is reported by Respondent in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 191.17.\n\n\n\n2\n§ 191.5 Telephonic notice of certain incidents.\n(a) At the earliest practicable moment following discovery, each\noperator shall give notice in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section\nof each incident as defined in § 191.3.\n(b) Each notice required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be made\nby telephone to 800-424-8802 (in Washington, DC, 267-2675) and shall\ninclude the following information.\n(1) Names of operator and person making report and their telephone\nnumbers.\n(2) The location of the incident.\n(3) The time of the incident.\n(4) The number of fatalities and personal injuries, if any.\n(5) All other significant facts that are known by the operator that are\nrelevant to the cause of the incident or extent of the damages.2\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.5(a) by failing to give telephonic\nnotice at the earliest practicable moment following discovery of an incident that occurred at its\nPetersburg Compressor Station on June 24, 2008. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the station\nexperienced an unintentional blowing of gas resulting in the loss of gas valued over $50,000.3\nFollowing the PHMSA inspection in May 2009, MGT provided telephonic notice of the incident\non June 9, 2009.\nRespondent did not contest this violation, but provided an explanation and requested that the\nproposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent’s request to reduce the proposed penalty is\naddressed in the Assessment of Penalty section below.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of the evidence, I find Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 191.5(a) by failing to give notice at the earliest practicable moment following discovery of the\nincident that occurred at its Petersburg Compressor Station on June 24, 2008.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(a), which, in 2008,\nstated as follows:\n§ 191.15 Transmission and gathering systems: Incident report.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, each operator\nof a transmission or a gathering pipeline system shall submit Department\nof Transportation Form RSPA F 7100.2 as soon as practicable but not\nmore than 30 days after detection of an incident required to be reported\nunder § 191.5.\n4\n2 The section heading and paragraph (b) of § 191.5 were amended by Pipeline Safety: Updates to Pipeline and\nLiquefied Natural Gas Reporting Requirements, 75 Fed. Reg. 72,878, 72,905 (Nov. 26, 2010).\n3 On the date in question, § 191.3 defined a reportable incident to include a release of gas resulting in property\ndamage of $50,000 or more, including cost of gas lost. The definition of incident was amended by 75 Fed. Reg.\n72,905. Reportable incidents now include a release of gas resulting in property damage of $50,000 or more,\nexcluding the cost of gas lost, or an unintentional release of three million cubic feet (3 MMCF) or more of gas.\n4 Section 191.15 was also amended by 75 Fed. Reg. 72,905.\n\n\n\n3\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(a) by failing to submit a written\nincident report on RSPA Form 7100.2 as soon as practicable, but not more than 30 days after\ndetection of the incident that occurred on June 24, 2008. Following the PHMSA inspection in\nMay 2009, MGT submitted a written report for the incident on June 9, 2009.\nRespondent did not contest this violation, but provided an explanation and requested that the\nproposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent’s request to reduce the proposed penalty is\naddressed in the Assessment of Penalty section below.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of the evidence, I find Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 191.15(a) by failing to submit an incident report on RSPA Form 7100.2 as soon as practicable,\nbut not more than 30 days after detection of the incident.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $40,000 for the\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 191.5 and 191.15.\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I\nmust consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s ability to pay the penalty and any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $20,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 191.5(a). Respondent violated § 191.5(a) by failing to provide telephonic notice to the\nNational Response Center (NRC) at the earliest practicable moment following discovery of the\nincident that occurred at its Petersburg Compressor Station.\nIn its Response, MGT explained that the event on June 24, 2008, involved the release of gas\nthrough a 1.5-inch vent valve as a result of a loss of electric power at the unit control panel. This\ncaused the valve to remain open, venting gas overnight until it was discovered and manually\nclosed. Respondent explained further that the valve at issue was designed to permit the venting\nof gas to a safe location away from the compressor building and equipment, with little risk to\npublic safety. MGT stated that it has made changes to the electric power supply for the unit\ncontrol panel to minimize reoccurrence. MGT also made changes to its operating procedures to\n\n\n\n4\nensure prompt reporting of incidents in the future in accordance with § 191.5. MGT contended\nthat the changes made to its unit control panel, the clarifications to its procedures, and little risk\nto public safety warrant mitigation of the proposed civil penalty.\nIn general, failing to promptly report an incident can compromise public safety by preventing\nPHMSA and other regulatory agencies from assessing the incident and determining how best to\nrespond. Failure to provide timely notice can also make it more difficult for PHMSA to\ninvestigate and determine the cause of the incident. The importance of incident reporting has\npublications, the agency stressed to operators that they are expected to telephonically report all\nbeen the subject of several public reminders published by PHMSA over the years.5 In those\nincidents in accordance with § 191.5 within only one to two hours of discovery.\nWhile the release of gas on June 24, 2008, did not result in harm to the public or property, the\nunintentional venting of approximately 8 MMCF of gas from a station valve is a significant\nrelease of gas and large enough to require immediate reporting to PHMSA under both the former\nand current definition of incident.\n6 When the gas release was first discovered by Respondent,\nthe company estimated the amount of gas lost was even larger, approximately 20 MMCF, yet\nRespondent still failed to report it.\nhave procedures for reporting such an incident as required by § 191.5.\n7 Furthermore, the record demonstrates Respondent did not\nWith regard to the changes made to the unit control panel and clarifications to its procedures,\nthese actions were taken after the violation had already been identified by PHMSA. Once a\ncompliance issue is identified, PHMSA expects any prudent operator to take action to remediate\nthe issue and prevent reoccurrence.\n8\nFor the above reasons, despite Respondent’s contention of little risk to public safety, I find the\nnature, circumstances, and gravity of failing to report the significant release of gas supports\nassessment of the proposed penalty, and there is no justification in the record for mitigating the\namount.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $20,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.5(a).\n5 On April 15, 1991, and September 6, 2002, Notices were issued by PHMSA’s predecessor agency reemphasizing\nto pipeline operators that telephonic notification should be made within one to two hours after discovery so that\nPHMSA, NTSB, and other agencies can make a timely determination regarding the need for possible action.\nPipeline Safety Alert Notice: ALN-91-01 (Apr. 15, 1991); Advisory Bulletin: ADB–02–04, 67 FR 57060 (Sept. 6,\n2002).\n6 NRC Report # 908043 (June 9, 2009). The volume of gas lost was reported as 8,000 MCF (thousand cubic feet),\nbut for purposes of incident reporting, PHMSA measures volume in MMCF (million cubic feet).\n7 Violation Report at 2.\n8 See e.g., In the Matter of Enbridge Pipelines LLC, Final Order, CPF No. 3-2007-5022, at 3, 2009 WL 2336996\n(Jun. 2, 2009) (finding corrective action taken after an accident had already occurred did not warrant mitigation of\nthe proposed penalty); In the Matter of Citgo Pipeline Co., Final Order, CPF No. 4-2005-5012, at 3, 2005 WL\n5010156 (Jul. 14, 2005) (stating that corrective action taken after the OPS inspection did not justify reducing the\nproposed penalty).\n\n\n\n5\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $20,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 191.15(a). Respondent violated § 191.15(a) by failing to submit a written incident report as\nsoon as practicable, but not more than 30 days after detection of the incident.\nMGT requested that the civil penalty be reduced for the same reasons provided for Item 1.\nTimely filing of written incident reports provides important information to PHMSA about an\nincident, in considerably more detail than can be collected when reporting telephonically. In\naddition, data collected by the agency about incidents contribute to the effectiveness of\nPHMSA’s safety program by developing an understanding of how and why pipeline incidents\noccur. Important information like the cause, type of failure, type of pipe, and extent of harm to\npublic and property help PHMSA determine whether there is a need to take a closer look at the\noperations and maintenance of a particular pipeline facility, or whether to evaluate and update\ncurrent safety regulations or issue new ones.\nFor the same reasons discussed in Item 1, I find the nature, circumstances, and gravity of failing\nto file a timely written report support assessment of the proposed penalty. I further find there is\nno justification in the record for mitigating the amount.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $20,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(a).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $40,000.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $40,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 3 and 4, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 and specifically\nconsidered them to be warning items. The warnings were for:\n\n\n\n6\n49 C.F.R. § 192.227(a)-(b) (Item 3) – Respondent’s alleged failure to qualify each\nwelder in accordance with Section 6 of API Standard 1104, “Welding of Pipelines and\nRelated Facilities.” The Notice alleged that an insufficient number of destructive tests\nhad been performed to comply with Section 6 of API Standard 1104, as evidenced by\nMGT’s Welder Qualification Test Reports. MGT stated during the PHMSA inspection\nthat this was a recordkeeping error and subsequently provided information that additional\ntests had been performed.\n49 C.F.R. § 192.743(b) (Item 4) – Respondent’s alleged failure to conduct annual\nreviews and calculations to verify relief devices had sufficient capacity. The Notice\nalleged that MGT’s procedures designated a particular computer program to be used for\nannual reviews and calculations, but the program had not been used for several years.\nMGT had instead relied on annual set point checks and routine maintenance as\nverification that device capacities were sufficient.\nMGT presented information in its Response showing that it had taken actions to address the cited\nitems. If OPS finds one or more of these issues in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be\nsubject to future enforcement action.\nPursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this\nFinal Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety,\nPHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a\ncopy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA will accept\npetitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of the Final Order by the Respondent,\nprovided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49\nC.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty\nassessed. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final\nadministrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\n_______________________________ _____________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":18922}