{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420101005","title":"EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2010-09-10","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 191.15(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420101005.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420101005.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420101005","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420101005","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 191.15(b). The case was opened on 2010-09-10 and is reported as closed as of 2012-11-09. Proposed civil penalty: $20,000. Assessed civil penalty: $20,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420101005_Final Order_10242012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420101005/420101005_Final%20Order_10242012.pdf\n\n420101005_Final Order_10242012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420101005/420101005_Final%20Order_10242012_text.pdf\n\n420101005_NOPV PCP PCO_09102010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420101005/420101005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09102010.pdf\n\n420101005_NOPV PCP PCO_09102010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420101005/420101005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09102010_text.pdf\n\n420101005_Final Order_10242012_text.pdf\n\nOCTOBER 24, 2012\nMr. Thomas A. Martin, President\nEl Paso Natural Gas Company\n1001 Louisiana Street\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2010-1005\nDear Mr. Martin:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $20,000. It further finds that El Paso Natural Gas\nCompany has completed the actions specified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. When the civil penalty has been paid, this enforcement action will be closed.\nService of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as\notherwise 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. Rod Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\nMs. Elizabeth Herdes, Senior Counsel, El Paso Natural Gas Pipeline Partners, LP\nMr. Patrick Carey, Director, DOT Compliance Services, El Paso Pipeline Partners LP,\n1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, TX 77252\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n__________________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\n)\nEl Paso Natural Gas Company, ) CPF No. 4-2010-1005\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n_________________________________________ )\nFINAL ORDER\nOn November 5 through 9, 2009, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\ninitiated an investigation of an incident involving El Paso Natural Gas Company’s (EPNG or\nRespondent) natural gas transmission pipeline near Bushland, Texas. EPNG is now a subsidiary\nof El Paso Pipeline Partners, LP, which operates a 13,000-mile interstate pipeline system.\n1\nThe investigation arose out of a November 5, 2009 failure on Respondent’s Dumas-to-Amarillo\n24-inch pipeline, known as Line 1102, that resulted in a release of natural gas and an explosion\nand fire that destroyed one home, injured three people, and caused an evacuation and other\nproperty damage (Failure). As a result of the investigation, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS\n(Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated September 10, 2010, a Notice of Probable\nViolation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance\nwith 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that EPNG had violated\n49 C.F.R. § 191.15 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $20,000 for the alleged violation.\nThe Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged\nviolation.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated October 13, 2010 (Response). The company\ncontested the allegation, offered additional information in response to the Notice, requested that\nthe proposed civil penalty be reduced, and requested a hearing. A hearing was subsequently held\n1 At the time of the incident, the facilities in question were operated by EPNG, which was subsequently acquired by\nKinder Morgan, Inc., on May 24, 2012. EPNG continues to operate as a subsidiary of El Paso Pipeline Partners, LP,\na Kinder Morgan company. El Paso Pipeline Partners, LP, consists of a master limited partnership that owns and\noperates natural gas transportation pipelines, storage, and other midstream assets throughout the United States.\nhttp://www.eppipelinepartners.com/ (last accessed October 17, 2012).\n\n\n\n2\non November 15, 2010, in Houston, Texas, with an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel,\nPHMSA, presiding. After the hearing, Respondent provided additional written material for the\nrecord, by letter dated December 17, 2010 (Closing).\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 191, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(b), which states:\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 § 191.5.2\n(b) Where additional related information is obtained after a report is\nsubmitted under paragraph (a) of this section, the operator shall make a\nsupplemental report as soon as practicable with a clear reference by date\nand subject to the original report.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(b) by failing to make a\nsupplemental report as soon as practicable after obtaining additional information related to a\npipeline incident for which it had filed an initial incident report. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat on December 2, 2009, EPNG filed an incident report for the Failure, indicating the apparent\ncause of the failure as “Unknown—Still Under Investigation.”3 EPNG subsequently received a\ndetailed metallurgical analysis report on the probable cause of failure from Stress Engineering\nServices (SES) on December 10, 2009, but did not submit a supplemental report until\nSeptember 2, 2010, approximately eight months later.\nAccording to the Notice, the metallurgical report identified the probable cause of the rupture as\nbeing a one-time overload event on laminations within the carrier pipe wall, in a region along the\nreinforcing saddle-to-carrier pipe weld.4 Although PHMSA received a copy of the metallurgical\nanalysis from SES in December 2009, Respondent did not submit a supplemental report as soon\nas practicable after obtaining this additional information.\nIn its Response and at the hearing, EPNG admitted that it did not submit the supplemental report\n2 Subsequent to the date of the alleged violation, Section 191.15 was amended by 75 Fed. Reg. 72,905\n(November 26, 2010). Nevertheless, the amendment does not affect this proceeding.\n3 The Incident Report (IR) number is 20090125-6802 (dated December 2, 2009), PHMSA Form 7100-2, formerly\nnamed Form RSPA F 7100.2.\n4 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (September 10, 2010) (on file with PHMSA) Exhibit A,\nMetallurgical Analysis of the Ruptured 24Inch, Line 1102 Near Amarillo, Texas, Stress Engineering Services, Inc.,\ndated December 10, 2009, at 2.\n\n\n\n3\nuntil September 2, 2010. However, the company raised four defenses, as summarized in its\nClosing, as to why a supplemental report was not required. First, the company argued that in\nbringing this enforcement action, PHMSA had created a new substantive obligation for EPNG\nthat had not previously been articulated by the agency. The company argued that a court’s\nindependent review would find that PHMSA’s “interpretation is procedurally defective, arbitrary\nor capricious in substance, or is manifestly contrary to the statute or regulation.”5\nSecond, EPNG argued that PHMSA had misapplied 49 CFR § 191.15 because the regulation did\nnot require an operator to supplement its incident report when the root cause of the incident\nremained unknown. Third, Respondent questioned whether an operator was required to submit a\nsupplemental report when PHMSA and local landowners had been kept fully informed of the\nstatus of the root cause investigation. Fourth, Respondent argued that the allegation of violation\nwas “moot” because EPNG had supplemented its incident report before issuance of the Notice.\nRespondent also requested a reduction in the proposed civil penalty, which is addressed in the\nAssessment of Penalty section below.\nAs for its first argument, EPNG argued that PHMSA had not previously articulated a position or\nprovided any guidance on supplemental reports prior to issuing the Notice in this case. The\ncompany contended that its first notice of the agency’s interpretation of 49 CFR § 191.15 was\nthrough the Notice and that only then did the company learn that PHMSA interpreted the\nregulation as requiring an operator to supplement an incident report whenever the company\nreceived interim failure analysis data. Since the Notice reflected a new requirement imposed by\nPHMSA, EPNA argued that a court would likely find that the requirement had been unlawfully\npromulgated because there had been no notice-and-comment rulemaking process, as required\nunder the Administrative Process Act (APA). EPNG further contended that even if PHMSA’s\naction were not deemed a new substantive requirement but was “merely interpretive in nature,”\nthe agency would still not be entitled to any deference by the courts under Chevron U.S.A., Inc.\nv. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) and other APA cases.\nI find Respondent’s argument specious. First and foremost, I reject the notion that the\nsupplemental reporting requirement, as applied here, is somehow novel or that it imposes any\nnew substantive requirement not clearly articulated in the regulation itself. The text of the\nregulation states: “Where additional related information is obtained after a report is submitted…,\nthe operator shall make a supplemental report as soon as practicable…” The metallurgical report\nreceived by EPNG falls within the scope of “additional related information” that must be shared\nwith PHMSA through the filing of a timely supplemental report.\nSecond, the interpretation applied by PHMSA in this case is nothing new. The agency had\npreviously articulated its position and provided guidance on supplemental reports prior to issuing\nthe Notice. This included prior enforcement actions6 and a 1994 Advisory Bulletin reminding\n5 Closing at 3.\n6 E.g., In the Matter of Venoco, Inc., Final Order, CPF No. 5-2002-2001 (Nov. 29, 2004); and In the Matter of\nCenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company, Final Order, CPF No. 4-2009-1001 (Nov. 6, 2009); (available at\nwww.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).\n\n\n\n4\npipeline facility owners and operators of the need “to submit a supplemental written report\nwhenever additional relevant information is obtained concerning the particular incident or\naccident.”7\nAs for Respondent’s contention that PHMSA has somehow “abused its discretion” under the\nAPA by interpreting and applying 49 CFR § 191.15 in an adjudication rather than through a\nrulemaking, I do not agree. PHMSA is not necessarily required to undertake a rulemaking in\norder to interpret its own regulations. In fact, courts have long recognized the discretion of\nagencies to set forth regulatory interpretations either by adjudication or through rulemaking.8\nHowever, as stated above, PHMSA had previously articulated its position and provided guidance\non supplemental reports prior to issuing the Notice in this case; therefore, PHMSA did not\nengage in any sort of de facto rulemaking by issuing the Notice.\nAs for EPNG’s second argument that 49 CFR § 191.15 does not require an operator to\nsupplement an incident report when the root cause of the incident remains unknown, this\ncontention is based largely on Respondent’s reading of Line 25 of part F7 of the incident report\nform, which provides two alternative boxes for an operator to check when the cause of an\naccident remains unknown. The first indicates that the company’s investigation is “complete.”\nThe second indicates that the cause is “Still Under Investigation (submit a supplemental report\nwhen the investigation is complete).” EPNG contends that these two alternatives suggest\nPHMSA interprets § 191.15(b) to mean that a supplemental report is not required so long as an\noperator’s investigation is still incomplete.\nAt the hearing, PHMSA asserted that the regulation clearly requires that an operator file one or\nmore supplemental reports whenever an operator receives any changes or additional information\nrelated to the incident in the original report, not just when an investigation has been completed. I\nagree. The regulation provides a straightforward requirement under which operators must\nsubmit a supplemental report whenever they obtain additional information relevant to the cause\nof the incident or the extent of damages.\n9 I find that the metallurgical analysis in this case\ncontained such additional relevant information.\nDepending on the circumstances, an operator may supplement an incident report several times\nbefore an investigation is complete, as additional information becomes available. Just because\nan investigation has not been completed is no reason to fail to comply with § 191.15(b). In fact,\na reading to the contrary would mean that if an investigation were never completed or if it took\nyears to make a final determination of the cause of a failure, an operator might never need to file\na supplemental report or file one several years later. I do not believe such a result was ever\nintended or contemplated by the regulation.\n7 Certain Requirements Applying to Supplemental Incident/Accident Reports and Estimated Property Damage\nTotals, Advisory Bulletin (ADB-94-01), January 13, 1994.\n8 NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267, 292–94 (1974) (stating that an agency is “not precluded from\nannouncing new principles in an adjudicative proceeding”).\n9 49 C.F.R. § 191.5.\n\n\n\n5\nAs for Respondent’s third argument that it did not need to file a supplemental report in this case\nbecause EPNG had kept PHMSA and local landowners informed of the status of its investigation\nand of its actions under the corrective action order (CAO),10 the company testified that it held a\ntown hall meeting and delivered various written communications to the residents in the\ncommunity.11\nIn response, PHMSA officials responded that supplemental incident reports serve a purpose\nseparate and distinct from the need to keep the agency or the community abreast of the\ncompany’s investigation or corrective actions under a CAO. The agency argued, on the contrary,\nthat an operator’s compliance with reporting requirements helps PHMSA to understand,\nmeasure, and assess the performance of individual operators and industry, and to integrate\npipeline safety data to allow a more comprehensive understanding and assessment of risk. While\nI appreciate the company’s public awareness efforts and its actions to satisfy the requirements of\nthe CAO, they are no substitute for filing supplemental reports under 49 CFR § 191.15.\nAs for Respondent’s fourth argument that the allegation of violation is rendered moot because\nEPNG had already supplemented its incident report before issuance of the Notice, PHMSA\nsubmitted evidence that agency officials had inquired about the supplemental report in\nAugust 2010, at which point the company confirmed that it had not yet filed the report.12 The\ncompany filed its supplemented report on September 2, 2010, and the Notice was issued on\nSeptember 10, 2010, approximately eight months after the report should have been filed. The\nallegation of violation is certainly not rendered moot simply because the supplemental report had\nbeen filed by the date of the Notice; the violation took place over a period of months prior to the\nfiling of the Notice.\nIn summary, I find that the meaning of §191.15 is clear from the plain language of the\nregulation: “Where additional related information is obtained after a report is submitted under\nparagraph (a) of this section, the operator shall make a supplemental report as soon as\npracticable…” I further find that on December 10, 2009, the company received the results of a\nmetallurgical analysis identifying additional information, triggering a required update of the\ninformation originally reported, but that EPNG failed to submit a supplemental report until\nSeptember 2, 2010, approximately eight months after obtaining the results of the metallurgical\nanalysis. Accordingly, I find Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(b), by failing to make a\nsupplemental report as soon as practicable after obtaining additional information related to a\npipeline incident for which it had filed an incident report.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\n10 In the Matter of El Paso Natural Gas Western Operations Group, Corrective Action Order, C.P.F. No. 4-2009-\n1021H (Nov. 10, 2009) (available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement). The CAO required El Paso to take\ncertain corrective actions with respect to the Failure.\n11 EPNG Hearing Submittal at Tab 6.\n12 Violation Report at 4.\n\n\n\n6\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 $20,000 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $20,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 191.15(b), for failing to submit a supplemental written report as soon as practicable\nafter obtaining additional information related to the Failure. EPNG requested a reduced penalty\nfor several reasons, including the fact that the company had no prior violations of this nature, its\ngood-faith attempts to comply by working with PHMSA and its ongoing communications with\nPHMSA and the community, and its prompt corrective action after PHMSA requested the\nsupplemental report. Further, EPNG argued that it had found no evidence that PHMSA had\npenalized any other operator for a failure to supplement an Incident Form.\nI find these arguments unconvincing. As discussed above, I found that the company had a clear\nresponsibility to submit a supplemental report whenever it obtained additional relevant\ninformation about an incident. Upon review of the record, I find that the eventual filing of the\nsupplemental report after PHMSA’s inquiry in September 2010 does not warrant a reduction in\nthe proposed penalty. As demonstrated by the record, EPNG’s history of compliance and the\nlow gravity of the violation had already been factored into the proposed penalty. As stated\nabove, PHMSA has issued civil penalties for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(b). 13 Respondent’s\nargument that the proposed civil penalty is dissimilar to previous past cases does not support\nreduction or elimination of the penalty.14\nThe timely filing of written incident reports provides important information to PHMSA about an\nincident, in considerably more detail than can be collected when reported telephonically. In\naddition, data collected by the agency about incidents contributes to the effectiveness of\nPHMSA’s safety program by developing an understanding of how and why pipeline incidents\noccur. Important information such as the cause and type of failure, type of pipe, and extent of\nharm to public and property help PHMSA determine whether there is a need to take a closer look\nat the operations and maintenance of a particular pipeline facility, or whether to evaluate and\n13 See, e.g., In the CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co., Final Order, CPF 4-2009-1001, (Nov. 6, 2009)\n(available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).\n14 Even if the present case were similar to past ones, the Supreme Court has held that absent a statutory provision to\nthe contrary, “uniformity of sanctions for similar violations” is not required. See Butz v. Glover Livestock\nCommission Company, Inc., 411 U.S. 182, 186-87 (1973).\n\n\n\n7\nupdate current safety regulations or to issue new ones.\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(b).\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 $20,000 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.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for violations of\n49 C.F.R. § 191.15(b). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director indicates that\nRespondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance order:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 191.15(b) (Item 1), Respondent has submitted a\nsupplemental incident report specifying the apparent cause of the November 5, 2009\nfailure on EPNG’s Line 1102 pipeline.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,\nthe compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has the 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 the 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 but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order, including\nany required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final\nOrder becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is\n\n\n\n8\nwaived.\nThe 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\n\n420101005_NOPV PCP PCO_09102010_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nSeptember 10, 2010\nMr. Michael Catt\nVice President of Field Operations, El Paso Natural Gas Western Operations Group\nEl Paso Natural Gas Company\n2 North Nevada Street\nColorado Springs, CO 80944\nCPF 4-2010-1005\nDear Mr. Catt:\nOn November 5-9, 2009, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code investigated an\nincident that occurred on November 5, 2009 on El Paso Natural Gas Company’s (EPNG)\nDumas-to-Amarillo, 24-inch, Line 1102 natural gas pipeline. The incident occurred at Mile Post\n42 + 4250, in Potter County, Texas, approximately 15 miles west of Amarillo, Texas, in or near\nthe unincorporated community of Bushland.\nAs a result of the incident investigation, it appears that you have committed probable violations\nof the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The item inspected\nand the probable violation is:\n1. § 191.15 Transmission and gathering systems: Incident report.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, each operator of a\ntransmission or a gathering pipeline system shall submit Department of\n\n\n\nTransportation Form RSPA F 7100.2 as soon as practicable but not more than 30\ndays after detection of an incident required to be reported under § 191.5.\n(b) Where additional related information is obtained after a report is submitted\nunder paragraph (a) of this section, the operator shall make a supplemental report\nas soon as practicable with a clear reference by date and subject to the original\nreport.\nEPNG failed to file a supplemental report for the Line 1102 pipeline system incident that\noccurred on November 5, 2009 as soon as practicable after additional information was obtained.\nAt approximately 12:09 AM MST on November 5, 2009, a rupture occurred on the EPNG bi-\ndirectional, Dumas-to-Amarillo, 24-inch, Line 1102 natural gas pipeline at Mile Post 42 + 4250,\nin Potter County, Texas, approximately 15 miles west of Amarillo, Texas, in or near the\nunincorporated community of Bushland. The incident was reported to the National Response\nCenter (NRC Report # 922663), and PHMSA Investigators responded to investigate the incident.\nCertain pipe segments and appurtenances from the line section in which the failure occurred,\nincluding line pipe and appurtenances, were transported from the failure site to Stress\nEngineering Services (SES) in Houston, TX for analysis. EPMG submitted an original accident\nreport to PHMSA (Form 7100-2) on December 2, 2009 (20090125 – 6802). This report listed as\nthe cause “Unknown – Still Under Investigation” with little additional description in Part “G” of\nthe report. A metallurgical failure analysis was performed by SES; the SES Metallurgical\nFailure Report # PN1251041 was provided by SES to the operator on or about December 10,\n2009; and the probable cause of the rupture was determined to be the result of a one-time\noverload event on laminations within the carrier pipe wall in a region along the reinforcing\nsaddle-to-carrier pipe fillet weld. As of August 27, 2010, a supplemental PHMSA 7100-2 report\nhas not been filed. The final metallurgical failure report with information as to the apparent\ncause of the incident is considered additional related information.\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 $20,000 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $ 20,000\n2\n\n\n\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item number 1 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to EPNG.\nPlease refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this\nNotice.\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\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 4-2010-1005 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\n3\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 El Paso Natural Gas Company (EPNG) a\nCompliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance\nof EPNG with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to failure to comply with the\nrequirements of §191.15, EPNG must immediately file a supplemental DOT Form 7100.2\nreport for number 20090125 specifying the apparent cause of failure of the Bushland, TX\nLine 1102 pipeline incident and updating any other information obtained since the\nincident. If all of the information about the incident is known, this information must be\nincluded and the incident report filed as a final report.\n2. EPNG shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with\nfulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to R.M. Seeley, Director, Southwest\nRegion, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Costs shall be reported\nin two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures,\nstudies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other\nchanges to pipeline infrastructure.\n4","truncated":false,"body_characters":31499}