{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420101001","title":"WESTERN GAS INTERSTATE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2010-01-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.463(a), 192.465(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420101001.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420101001.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420101001","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420101001","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving WESTERN GAS INTERSTATE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.463(a),  192.465(d). The case was opened on 2010-01-13 and is reported as closed as of 2011-12-22. Proposed civil penalty: $120,000. Assessed civil penalty: $0. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420101001_Final Order_12222011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420101001/420101001_Final%20Order_12222011.pdf\n\n420101001_Final Order_12222011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420101001/420101001_Final%20Order_12222011_text.pdf\n\n420101001_NOPV PCP PCO_01132010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420101001/420101001_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_01132010.pdf\n\n420101001_NOPV PCP PCO_01132010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420101001/420101001_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_01132010_text.pdf\n\n420101001_NOPV PCP PCO_01132010_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJanuary 13, 2010\nRichard Hatchett\nWestern Gas Interstate\n211 North Colorado\nMidland, Texas 79701\nCPF 4-2010-1001\nDear Mr. Hatchett:\nOn April 14-17, 2009, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected your\nWestern Gas Interstate (WGI) in Guymon, Oklahoma.\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 and the\nprobable violation(s) are:\n1. §192.463 External corrosion control: Cathodic protection\n(a) Each cathodic protection system required by this subpart must provide a level of\ncathodic protection that complies with one or more of the applicable criteria\ncontained in appendix D of this part.\nWGI procedure P-192.455 titled “Installation of Cathodic Protection System” identifies the\nvarious criteria from appendix D allowed to determine adequate cathodic protection. However,\nWGI procedure P-192.465(a) titled “Conduct Cathodic Protection Surveys” which references\n192.463, only describes and allows one acceptable method for determining cathodic protection in\n\n\n\nthe section titled “Measure Pipeline-to-Soil Potentials, DC” and that method is the negative\nvoltage of at least 850 millivolts. WGI could not demonstrate compliance with this code\nrequirement as demonstrated in the following table. Further, WGI could not demonstrate\ncompliance with any of the other acceptable criteria found in appendix D.\nWestern Gas Interstate\nTable 1\nTest Station\nLocation 2009 2008 2007\nNote: All readings negative unless otherwise stated\nThree (3) locations with readings 2+ years out of compliance\nBuckles #2 Reg Sta 0.546 mv 0.519 mv 0.756 mv\n.25 S Buckles Ranch\nEntrance 0.609 mv 0.627 mv 0.787 mv\n1M N of rectifier #1 @\nW House 0.775 mv 0.644 mv 0.708 mv\nNineteen (19) locations with readings 1+ years out of compliance\n1 mi. E. of bacon Tie-In 0.799 mv 0.683 mv\n1 mi. E. of Rect. #9 0.818 mv 0.714 mv\n1 mi. from Last Test\nStation 0.533 mv 0.746 mv\nSame location as last\ntest station 0.461 mv 0.670 mv\nClifford Evans Corner 0.763 mv 0.592 mv\n1 mi. from last test\nstation 0.708 mv 0.622 mv\n1 mi. from last test\nstation 0.832 mv 0.735 mv\n1 mi. from Rect. 17 0.765 mv 0.752 mv\n.5M S Rectifier #6 0.698 mv 0.721 mv\nSchertler Reg Sta. 0.655 mv 0.700 mv\nS Smith Sta. 0.664 mv 0.692 mv\n1.3 M North of T/S # 51 0.743 mv 0.729 mv\n1 Mile North 0.750 mv 0.738 mv\n½ Mile North 0.776 mv 0.752 mv\nSteffins 0.717 mv 0.686 mv\n1 Mile North 0.694 mv 0.641 mv\n1 Mile North 0.369 mv 0.641 mv\nUnion Lat W Side 287 0.845 mv 0.593 mv\nSandyview Reg. Sta 0.717 mv 0.674 mv\n2\n\n\n\n2. §192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring\n(d) Each operator shall take prompt remedial action to correct any deficiencies\nindicated by the monitoring.\nWGI requires in its “Gas Operations and Maintenance Manual” in section 3.3 Compliance\nRequirements, that prompt remedial actions per 192.465(d) are implemented per WGI’s 3.37\nTable 7: Necessary Compliance Records. However, WGI has no procedures or forms for\nimplementing 192.465(d). The operator should have made all necessary evaluations and\ndecisions based on their cathodic protection readings and completed the necessary actions prior\nto the next annual cathodic protection survey. As indicated in item 1. above, pipelines showing\ninadequate test readings for one or more consecutive years indicate inadequate levels of cathodic\nprotection. WGI had not corrected three locations in more than two years and nineteen locations\nin more than one year, which does not represent a reasonable time for Prompt Remedial Actions.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000\nfor each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that\nyou be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $120,000 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $60,000\n2 $60,000\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 1 & 2, pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Western\nGas Interstate. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a\npart of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be\nadvised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being\nmade publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days\nof receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\n3\n\n\n\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in\nthis Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2010-1001 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n4\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Western Gas Interstate a Compliance Order\nincorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Western Gas\nInternational with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to monitoring the adequacy\nof cathodic protection, Western Gas Interstate must create new procedures and\nforms for implementing 192.465(d).\n2. Western Gas Interstate must implement corrective measures necessary to\nremediate the low potentials identified in the inspection and provide documented\nproof of the corrective measures.\n3. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to the criteria for determining\nthe adequacy of cathodic protection, Western Gas Interstate must submit\ndocumentation that shows the required cathodic protection criteria has been met\nalong the continuous length of the pipelines as required by §192.463 and the\nWestern Gas Interstate Operations, Maintenance, and Emergencies Manual. This\ndocumentation should include those pipeline segments specifically noted in the\nspread sheet shown above.\n4. Western Gas Interstate shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement\ncosts associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to\nR. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration. Costs shall be reported in two categories: 1) total cost\nassociated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses,\nand 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to\npipeline infrastructure.\n5\n\n420101001_Final Order_12222011_text.pdf\n\nDEC 22 2011\nMr. J. L. Davis\nPresident\nWestern Gas Interstate Company\n211 N. Colorado\nMidland, TX 79701\nRe: CPF No. 4-2010-1001\nDear Mr. Davis:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the\nallegations of violation, the proposed compliance order and the proposed civil penalty. This\nenforcement action is now closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed\neffective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise 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. R. M. Seeley, Director, OPS, Southwest Region\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nMr. Bart Bean, Operations Manager, Western Gas Interstate Company\nMr. Billy Hawkins, Division Manager, Western Gas Interstate Company\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [_71791000164203020243\n_]\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 )\nWestern Gas Interstate Company, ) CPF No. 4-2010-1001\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n_________________________________________ )\nFINAL ORDER\nOn April 14 -17, 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 Western Gas\nInterstate Company (WGI or Respondent) in Guymon, Oklahoma. WGI, headquartered in\nMidland, Texas, owns and operates 150 miles of natural gas pipeline in the Texas and Oklahoma\nPanhandles.\n1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated January 13, 2010, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that WGI had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.463(a) and 192.465(d) and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $120,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nUpon requesting and receiving an extension of time, WGI responded to the Notice by letter dated\nApril 9, 2010, contesting the allegations and requesting a hearing (Response). A hearing was\nsubsequently held on November 3, 2010, in Houston, Texas, with an attorney from the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. After the hearing, Respondent provided additional written\nmaterial for the record, by letter dated November 22, 2010 (Closing).\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.463(a), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n1 http://www.westerngasinterstate.com/ (last accessed 6/15/2011).\n\n\n\n2\n§ 192.463 External corrosion control: Cathodic protection.\n(a) Each cathodic protection system required by this subpart must\nprovide a level of cathodic protection that complies with one or more of\nthe applicable criteria contained in appendix D of this part….\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.463(a) by failing to demonstrate\nthat it had provided a level of cathodic protection that complied with one or more of the\napplicable criteria contained in appendix D of this part. Specifically, it alleged that WGI’s\nprocedure “P-192.455, Installation of Cathodic Protection System,\n” had identified criteria from\nappendix D that the company used to determine adequate cathodic protection. However, another\nWGI procedure, Conduct Cathodic Protection Surveys,\nacceptable method for determining cathodic protection, which was the negative voltage of at\nleast 850 millivolts (mv). PHMSA alleged that the company had failed to apply this criteria to\ncertain pipe segments and that the company’s records and pipe-to-soil potential test operations\nrevealed several locations that failed to meet the -0.85 mv criteria.\n2 described and allowed only one\nIn Response, WGI presented two defenses. First, the company argued that the pipeline segments\nidentified in the Notice were uncoated steel that had been constructed and placed in service prior\nto August 1, 1971. WGI contended that cathodic protection equipment was not required3 on the\nbare pipe installed prior to 1971 in the absence of “active corrosion.\n” In support of its position,\nthe company pointed out that under 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(e)(1), the term “active corrosion” was\ndefined as “continuing corrosion which, unless controlled, could result in a condition that is\nany of the pipeline segments identified in the Notice and that its procedure for providing\ndetrimental to public safety.” 4 The company contended that active corrosion was not found on\ncathodic protection on bare pipe was voluntary and not a regulatory requirement.\nSecond, the company speculated that the Notice stemmed from a certain ambiguity or imprecise\nwording in its Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manual. WGI acknowledged that its O&M\nprocedure P-192.465(a) for cathodic protection could be interpreted to imply that WGI intended\nto achieve -0.85 mv of cathodic protection for its entire pipeline system, even though that was\nneither the company’s intent nor practice. 5\nRespondent argued that the Notice identified areas\nwhere WGI’s O&M Manual needed clarification but that it failed to identify a regulatory\nviolation regarding installation of cathodic protection equipment.\n2 WGI Procedure P-192.465(a), Conduct Cathodic Protection Survey. See PHMSA Violation Report, Exhibit A.\n3 49 C.F.R. § 192.457(b) states:\n(b) Except for cast iron or ductile iron, each of the following buried or submerged\npipelines installed before August 1, 1971, must be cathodically protected in accordance\nwith this subpart in areas in which active corrosion is found:\n(1) Bare or ineffectively coated transmission lines…\n4 49 C.F.R. 192.465(e)(1) Response, at 3. This regulation has since been amended (75 FR 48603; Aug. 11, 2010).\n5 WGI stated that “certain cathodic protection procedures which were intended to apply only to pipelines installed\nafter August 1, 1971 could have been read to apply to pipelines installed before August 1, 1971. Closing, at 1.\n\n\n\n3\nUpon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that the company’s procedures described and\nallowed negative voltage of at least 850 mv as the only acceptable method for determining\ncathodic protection and that such procedures were not followed with regard to the bare pipe\nsegments in question here. However, it is clear that the Notice did not allege a failure by\nRespondent to follow its own procedures under 49 C.F.R. § 605(a).\n6\nI further find the evidence does not support a finding of violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.463(a) since\nthere is no proof that WGI was required to use the negative voltage of at least 850 mv on this\npre-1971 pipe. After the hearing, Respondent subsequently submitted revised procedures in its\nClosing. A review of the revised procedures shows that WGI’s procedures are now consistent\nwith the current regulation and clarify that WGI considers pipelines installed prior to 1971 under\ndifferent criteria than those pipelines installed after that date. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby\norder that Item 1 of the Notice be withdrawn.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d), which states:\n§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) ….\n(d) Each operator shall take prompt remedial action to correct any\ndeficiencies indicated by the monitoring.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d) by failing to take prompt\nremedial action to correct deficiencies following test readings that showed inadequate levels of\ncathodic protection. The supporting allegation of violation in Item 1 was withdrawn; therefore,\nthis allegation of violation is also withdrawn.\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. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $120,000 for the violations cited above. The\nallegations of violation for Items 1 and 2 in the Notice have been withdrawn so therefore the\nproposed civil penalty is also withdrawn.\n6 I would note that had the agency cited Respondent for a violation of 49 C.F.R. 192.605(a), it is likely that WGI\nwould have been found in violation, based on the company’s failure to follow its own cathodic protection\nprocedures.\n\n\n\n4\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Item 1 and 2 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§192.463(a) and 192.465(d), respectively. The allegations of violations\nhave been withdrawn. Accordingly, the compliance terms are not included in this Order and no\nfurther action is required.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all\nother terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":19631}