# TALLGRASS INTERSTATE GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 320121007
- **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:** 2012-08-29
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.605(c)(4).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320121007.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320121007.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320121007
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320121007
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving TALLGRASS INTERSTATE GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.605(c)(4). The case was opened on 2012-08-29 and is reported as closed as of 2016-05-27. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

320121007_Closure Letter_05272016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320121007/320121007_Closure%20Letter_05272016.pdf

320121007_Closure Letter_05272016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320121007/320121007_Closure%20Letter_05272016_text.pdf

320121007_Final Order_10302013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320121007/320121007_Final%20Order_10302013.pdf

320121007_Final Order_10302013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320121007/320121007_Final%20Order_10302013_text.pdf

320121007_NOPV PCO_08292012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320121007/320121007_NOPV%20PCO_08292012.pdf

320121007_NOPV PCO_08292012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320121007/320121007_NOPV%20PCO_08292012_text.pdf

320121007_Operator Response and Request for Hearing_10012012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320121007/320121007_Operator%20Response%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing_10012012.pdf

320121007_Closure Letter_05272016_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
May 27, 2016
Mr. David G. Dehaemers, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission Company, LLC
6640 W. 143rd St., Suite 200
Overland Park, KS 66223
CPF No. 3-2012-1007
Dear Mr. Dehaemers:
On October 30, 2013, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission Company, L.L.C. a Final Order in the above-
referenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order. Based on our review of the
documentation you provided, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of
this Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Allan C. Beshore
Director, Central Region, OPS
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

320121007_Final Order_10302013_text.pdf

OCTOBER 30, 2013
Mr. David G. Dehaemers, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission Company, L.L.C.
6640 W. 143rd St., Suite 200
Overland Park, KS 66223
Re: CPF No. 3-2012-1007
Dear Mr. Dehaemers:
Please find enclosed the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of
violation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission
Company, L.L.C. to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the
compliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director, Central Region, this
enforcement action will be 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,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Linda Daugherty, Central Region Director, OPS
Jessica Toll, Esq., Assistant General Counsel, Kinder Morgan, Inc.
370 Van Gordon St., Lakewood, CO 80228-8304
Robert Hogfoss, Esq., Hunton & Williams LLP
Bank of America Plaza Suite 4100, 600 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30308
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 )
)
)
Tallgrass Interstate Gas )
Transmission Company, L.L.C., )
formerly, )
Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas )
Transmission Company, L.L.C., )
)
)
Respondent. )
___________________________________ )
) CPF No. 3-2012-1007
FINAL ORDER
During September through November, 2010, 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 operations and maintenance
procedures of Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission Company, L.L.C. (KMIGT) in
Kearney, Nebraska.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued a Notice of
Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) to KMIGT by letter dated August
29, 2012. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice alleged that KMIGT committed a
single violation of the natural gas pipeline safety regulations and proposed certain remedial
action. The Notice did not propose a civil penalty.
KMIGT responded to the Notice on October 1, 2012, by contesting the alleged violation and
requesting a hearing. In a pre-hearing submittal dated January 4, 2013, KMIGT provided
additional information regarding the alleged violation and informed PHMSA that the company
had been acquired by Tallgrass Energy Partners, LP. As a result of the acquisition, the KMIGT
business entity changed its name to Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission Company, L.L.C.
(TIGT). KMIGT and TIGT are referred to collectively as Respondent in this Order.1
1 TIGT operates approximately 4,700 miles of gas transmission pipeline in Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, and
Wyoming as indicated by its 2012 annual report filed pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 191.17.



2
In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, a hearing was held on January 15, 2013, in Kansas City,
Missouri before the Presiding Official from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA. Attendees
from KMIGT, TIGT, and OPS were present at the hearing. After the hearing, Respondent
provided a post-hearing written submittal dated February 15, 2013.
FINDING OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(c)(4), which states:
§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and
emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline,
a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance
activities and for emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual
must also include procedures for handling abnormal operations . . . .
(c) Abnormal operation. For transmission lines, the manual required
by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following
to provide safety when operating design limits have been exceeded:
(1) Responding to, investigating, and correcting the cause of:
(i) Unintended closure of valves or shutdowns;
(ii) Increase or decrease in pressure or flow rate outside normal
operating limits;
(iii) Loss of communications;
(iv) Operation of any safety device; and
(v) Any other foreseeable malfunction of a component, deviation
from normal operation, or personnel error, which may result in a
hazard to persons or property . . . .
(4) Periodically reviewing the response of operator personnel to
determine the effectiveness of the procedures controlling abnormal
operation and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(c)(4) by failing to prepare and
follow written procedures for reviewing its response to certain abnormal operations.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent did not review its response to an abnormal
operation that occurred on March 3, 2010, because Respondent did not consider the event to be
an abnormal operation. On that date, Respondent’s pipeline experienced a malfunction of a
regulator pilot and release of gas from a relief valve. The Notice alleged the event was an
abnormal operation as defined in § 192.605(c)(1) because it involved the operation of a safety
device (i.e., relief valve) and because the operating design limit (i.e., set point of the regulator)
had been exceeded resulting in the release of gas. The Notice alleged that Respondent’s
procedures and operating personnel did not classify the event as an abnormal operation.
The evidence produced by OPS included a Lost Causation Report prepared by Respondent on
March 4, 2010. The report documented the release of gas from the Lexington TBS #2 first-cut
relief valve. The release occurred when a “malfunctioning pilot on the regulator prevented the



3
regulator from locking up at set point.”2 It also noted that the “1st cut regulator did not lockup
and the resulting pressure increase caused the relief valve to vent.” Respondent determined the
root cause was a filter that had allowed dirt or debris to foul the pilot stem and seat which
prevented regulator lock up. Also included in evidence was a copy of Respondent’s operations
and maintenance (O&M) Procedure 1902, Abnormal Operation, dated November 1, 2009.
Respondent did not contest the facts of the event that occurred on March 3, 2010, but contested
the allegation that the event was an abnormal operation under § 192.605(c). In its written
submissions and at the hearing, Respondent argued that an abnormal operation only occurs
“when operating design limits have been exceeded.”3 Respondent contended that operating
design limits were never exceeded in this case. Instead, the system and the relief valve “operated
as intended within the limits of normal conditions and operations.”4 Neither the maximum
allowable operating pressure (MAOP) nor the design parameters of the relief valve were
exceeded according to Respondent, and the normal operation of the relief valve did not present a
hazard to persons or property.5
Respondent argued further that the set points of a regulator cannot be considered an “operating
design limit” because they are just signals transmitted by a controller. Set points vary frequently
and situationally, according to Respondent, sometimes changing by the day or by the hour
depending on the pressure the operator intends to send to a customer.6 Respondent insisted that
if OPS were to define abnormal operation as either exceeding a regulator set point or the
operation of any relief valve, it would be a significant change to the industry and require a
magnitude of additional reviews for situations commonly occurring within normal operations.
I. Regulatory requirement
Section 192.605(a) requires each operator to have and follow a manual of written procedures for
operations and maintenance activities. The procedures must address, among other things, the
handling of abnormal operations to provide safety when operating design limits have been
exceeded.7 Abnormal operations are pipeline events that occur outside the expected range of
normal operations, which could result in an imminent hazard or emergency.
8
The following events are listed in the regulation, which must be responded to, investigated, and
corrected: (i) unintended closure of valves or shutdowns; (ii) increase or decrease in pressure or
flow rate outside normal operating limits; (iii) loss of communications; (iv) operation of any
2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report, Exhibit A, p. 1 (Aug. 29, 2012).
3 § 192.605(c).
4 Response, p. 3 (Oct. 1, 2012).
5 Respondent noted that in the preamble to the final rule, the agency discussed a pressure excursion above MAOP as
an example of an abnormal condition. Operation and Maintenance Procedures for Pipelines, 59 Fed. Reg. 6579,
6582 (Feb. 11, 1994).
6 Post Hearing Submittal, p. 2 (Feb. 15, 2013).
7 § 192.605(c).
8 Operation and Maintenance Procedures for Pipelines, 54 Fed. Reg. 46685, 46688 (proposed Nov. 6, 1989).



4
safety device; and (v) any other foreseeable malfunction of a component, deviation from normal
operation, or personnel error, which may result in a hazard to persons or property.
The parties at the hearing discussed at length the meaning of the phrase “when operating design
limits have been exceeded” in § 192.605(c), and whether this terminology limited application of
the rule. Respondent essentially argued this phrase creates a threshold for applicability of the
rule. According to Respondent, an event that is specifically listed in § 192.605(c)(1) is not an
abnormal operation if design limits were not exceeded.
Reviewing § 192.605(c), the phrase “when operating design limits have been exceeded” appears
in the introductory text. The phrase completes a sentence that describes the purpose of the
procedures required by the rule. The purpose of procedures for addressing abnormal operations
is “to provide safety when operating design limits have been exceeded.” In this context, the
phrase is a descriptive reference to the types of events covered by the rule, which are then listed.
9
The regulatory history of the rule supports reading the phrase as a description of the abnormal
operations covered by the rule. When PHMSA proposed § 192.605(c) in 1989, the agency
explained that it would make the O&M procedural requirements for Parts 192 and 195
“reasonably similar.”10 At the time, § 195.402(d) already required procedures for responding to
abnormal operations on hazardous liquid pipelines and PHMSA believed it was appropriate for
the same requirements to be adopted for natural gas transmission lines. In discussing the
standard proposed for § 192.605(c), the agency stated that the regulation requires procedures for
safety “when operating design limits are exceeded, as indicated by, among other items, operation
of safety devices, unintended closure of valves or shutdowns, pressure excursions beyond normal
limits, and loss of communications.”11 This suggests the events listed in § 192.605(c)(1) are
examples of when operating design limits are exceeded.
Current PHMSA staff manuals describe the regulation in the same manner. For example, in
“Operations & Maintenance Enforcement Guidance: Part 192 Subparts L and M” (Dec. 7, 2011),
there is a glossary that defines an abnormal operation as: “Exceeding operating design limits,
including . . . (iv) operation of any safety device; and (v) any other foreseeable malfunction of a
component . . . .”12 While guidance does not constitute a rule, it can demonstrate a consistent
regulatory interpretation adopted by the agency. In this case, PHMSA interprets abnormal
operations as defined by the list of events in § 192.605(c)(1).
Both the regulatory history and applicable guidance suggest that the events listed in
§ 192.605(c)(1) are abnormal operations because they are instances in which operating design
9 The words “abnormal operations” do not actually appear in the introductory text.
10 54 Fed. Reg. 46687.
11 54 Fed. Reg. 46688 (emphasis added).
12 (Emphasis added.) See also “Operations & Maintenance Enforcement Guidance Part 195 Subpart F” (Dec. 7,
2011). PHMSA makes certain administrative staff manuals available on its website at
http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/foia/e-reading-room.



5
limits are exceeded. In other words, the events are abnormal operations subject to the rule
because they are inherently “outside the limits of normal conditions.”13
II. Analysis and finding
On March 3, 2010, Respondent’s system experienced a malfunction of a pipeline component
resulting in the operation of a safety device and release of gas.
With respect to whether the event in question was an abnormal operation, I have considered
Respondent’s argument that no abnormal operation occurred because the relief valve operated as
intended and because the MAOP and design parameters of the valve were never exceeded.
A surge in pressure above MAOP is only one example of an abnormal condition.14 Not all
abnormal operations are associated with increases in pressure. For example, the rule states that a
decrease in pressure outside the normal range is also an abnormal operation.15 In addition, some
abnormal operations are not associated with changes in pressure, such as the loss of
communications and a malfunction of a component.16 The fact that MAOP was not exceeded in
this case does not necessarily mean the event was a normal operation.
Likewise, it is not determinative that the relief valve operated as intended. All safety devices are
expected to operate as designed. The regulation still requires operators to treat the operation of a
safety device as an abnormal operation under § 192.605(c)(1)(iv). Although Respondent argued
that some relief valves may activate during normal operations, the relief valve in this case did not
activate during normal operations. It activated in association with the malfunction of a regulator,
which is an abnormal operation under § 192.605(c)(1)(v).
I have considered Respondent’s argument that the set point of a regulator cannot be considered
the “operating design limit” and that a decision to the contrary would be a significant change in
the industry.
The issue of whether pressure exceeding a regulator set point, by itself, constitutes an abnormal
operation is not presented in the facts of this case. The event that occurred in this case involved
two separate criteria that are listed as abnormal operations in § 192.605(c)(1): the malfunction of
a component and the operation of a safety device.
Although Respondent argued there would be significant change to the industry were PHMSA to
find an abnormal operation in this case, I conclude that finding an abnormal operation is required
by the text of the regulation. The finding is also consistent with prior administrative
explanations in both regulatory history and applicable guidance. Furthermore, I do not agree this
finding will broaden the scope of the regulation to cover normal operations. The application of
13 59 Fed. Reg. 6582.
14 § 192.605(c)(1)(ii).
15 § 192.605(c)(1)(ii).
16 § 192.605(c)(1)(iii).



6
the regulation remains limited by its terms. Section 192.605(c) only applies to operations outside
normal operating limits and other types of deviation from normal operation. In this case, the
malfunction of a regulator pilot resulting in the operation of a relief valve was outside normal
operations and should have been recognized by Respondent as an abnormal operation.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, I find the malfunction of the regulator pilot resulting in the
operation of a relief valve was an abnormal operation under § 192.605(c)(1)(iv) and (v).
Accordingly, Respondent was required to review the response of personnel to such conditions
periodically to determine the effectiveness of its procedures under § 192.605(c)(4). Respondent
did not have and follow procedures for reviewing the response of operator personnel to such
events and therefore did not comply with the regulation.
This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action
taken against Respondent.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to the violation of § 192.605(c)(4). Under
49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of natural gas by pipeline
or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety
standards established under chapter 601 of title 49, United States Code.
The proposed compliance order sought to require Respondent to develop procedures for
identifying abnormal operations like the event at issue in this case. It also sought to require
Respondent to amend training and qualification materials to ensure that personnel can follow the
new procedures.
In its post-hearing submission, Respondent objected to Item 1(iv) of the proposed compliance
order, which sought to require Respondent to go back one year to identify abnormal operations
that were not previously identified and to review the response of operator personnel under
§ 192.605(c)(4). Respondent argued it would be difficult to reclassify events as abnormal
operations after the fact when they were not initially identified as such.
Having considered Respondent’s objection, I agree that requiring Respondent to review past
actions to determine the effectiveness of new procedures is not a necessary exercise.17 It would
be more appropriate for Respondent to prospectively comply with § 192.605(c)(4) by reviewing
its future actions taken under the new procedures, and to determine the effectiveness of those
procedures. For this reason, the retroactive review sought under Item 1(iv) of the proposed
compliance order is not included.
17 I did not find additional justification for ordering this action in the Notice or Violation Report.



7
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 ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations
applicable to its operations:
1. Amend the written procedures for the periodic review of the response of personnel to
abnormal operations under § 192.605(c)(4). The procedures must clarify the types of
events that are abnormal operations under § 192.605(c)(1) consistent with this Final
Order.
2. Amend any associated training materials and written qualification programs, as
appropriate, to ensure that personnel can follow the procedures prepared under Item 1 of
this Compliance Order.
3. Submit documentation demonstrating compliance with Items 1 and 2 of this Compliance
Order within 90 days of receipt of this Order. Documentation must be submitted to the
Director, Central Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 901
Locust St., Suite 462, Kansas City, MO 64106.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by Respondent demonstrating good cause for an extension.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the assessment of civil penalties not to exceed
$200,000 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.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent may submit a petition for reconsideration of this final
order to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, D.C. 20590, no later than 20 days after receipt of the
Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and
meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The terms of the order, including the
corrective action, remain in effect upon the filing of a petition for reconsideration unless the
Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
_____________________________ ____________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 22690