# EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

420101005_Final Order_10242012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420101005/420101005_Final%20Order_10242012.pdf

420101005_Final Order_10242012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420101005/420101005_Final%20Order_10242012_text.pdf

420101005_NOPV PCP PCO_09102010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420101005/420101005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09102010.pdf

420101005_NOPV PCP PCO_09102010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420101005/420101005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09102010_text.pdf

420101005_Final Order_10242012_text.pdf

OCTOBER 24, 2012
Mr. Thomas A. Martin, President
El Paso Natural Gas Company
1001 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF No. 4-2010-1005
Dear Mr. Martin:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of
violation and assesses a civil penalty of $20,000. It further finds that El Paso Natural Gas
Company has completed the actions specified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations. When the civil penalty has been paid, this enforcement action will be closed.
Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as
otherwise 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: Mr. Rod Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS
Ms. Elizabeth Herdes, Senior Counsel, El Paso Natural Gas Pipeline Partners, LP
Mr. Patrick Carey, Director, DOT Compliance Services, El Paso Pipeline Partners LP,
1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, TX 77252
Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS
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 )
)
)
El Paso Natural Gas Company, ) CPF No. 4-2010-1005
)
)
Respondent. )
_________________________________________ )
FINAL ORDER
On November 5 through 9, 2009, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
initiated an investigation of an incident involving El Paso Natural Gas Company’s (EPNG or
Respondent) natural gas transmission pipeline near Bushland, Texas. EPNG is now a subsidiary
of El Paso Pipeline Partners, LP, which operates a 13,000-mile interstate pipeline system.
1
The investigation arose out of a November 5, 2009 failure on Respondent’s Dumas-to-Amarillo
24-inch pipeline, known as Line 1102, that resulted in a release of natural gas and an explosion
and fire that destroyed one home, injured three people, and caused an evacuation and other
property damage (Failure). As a result of the investigation, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS
(Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated September 10, 2010, a Notice of Probable
Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance
with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that EPNG had violated
49 C.F.R. § 191.15 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $20,000 for the alleged violation.
The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged
violation.
Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated October 13, 2010 (Response). The company
contested the allegation, offered additional information in response to the Notice, requested that
the proposed civil penalty be reduced, and requested a hearing. A hearing was subsequently held
1 At the time of the incident, the facilities in question were operated by EPNG, which was subsequently acquired by
Kinder Morgan, Inc., on May 24, 2012. EPNG continues to operate as a subsidiary of El Paso Pipeline Partners, LP,
a Kinder Morgan company. El Paso Pipeline Partners, LP, consists of a master limited partnership that owns and
operates natural gas transportation pipelines, storage, and other midstream assets throughout the United States.
http://www.eppipelinepartners.com/ (last accessed October 17, 2012).



2
on November 15, 2010, in Houston, Texas, with an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel,
PHMSA, presiding. After the hearing, Respondent provided additional written material for the
record, by letter dated December 17, 2010 (Closing).
FINDING OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 191, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(b), which states:
§ 191.15 Transmission and gathering systems: Incident report.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, each operator
of a transmission or a gathering pipeline system shall submit Department
of Transportation Form RSPA F 7100.2 as soon as practicable but not
more than 30 days after detection of an incident required to be reported
under § 191.5.2
(b) Where additional related information is obtained after a report is
submitted under paragraph (a) of this section, the operator shall make a
supplemental report as soon as practicable with a clear reference by date
and subject to the original report.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(b) by failing to make a
supplemental report as soon as practicable after obtaining additional information related to a
pipeline incident for which it had filed an initial incident report. Specifically, the Notice alleged
that on December 2, 2009, EPNG filed an incident report for the Failure, indicating the apparent
cause of the failure as “Unknown—Still Under Investigation.”3 EPNG subsequently received a
detailed metallurgical analysis report on the probable cause of failure from Stress Engineering
Services (SES) on December 10, 2009, but did not submit a supplemental report until
September 2, 2010, approximately eight months later.
According to the Notice, the metallurgical report identified the probable cause of the rupture as
being a one-time overload event on laminations within the carrier pipe wall, in a region along the
reinforcing saddle-to-carrier pipe weld.4 Although PHMSA received a copy of the metallurgical
analysis from SES in December 2009, Respondent did not submit a supplemental report as soon
as practicable after obtaining this additional information.
In its Response and at the hearing, EPNG admitted that it did not submit the supplemental report
2 Subsequent to the date of the alleged violation, Section 191.15 was amended by 75 Fed. Reg. 72,905
(November 26, 2010). Nevertheless, the amendment does not affect this proceeding.
3 The Incident Report (IR) number is 20090125-6802 (dated December 2, 2009), PHMSA Form 7100-2, formerly
named Form RSPA F 7100.2.
4 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (September 10, 2010) (on file with PHMSA) Exhibit A,
Metallurgical Analysis of the Ruptured 24Inch, Line 1102 Near Amarillo, Texas, Stress Engineering Services, Inc.,
dated December 10, 2009, at 2.



3
until September 2, 2010. However, the company raised four defenses, as summarized in its
Closing, as to why a supplemental report was not required. First, the company argued that in
bringing this enforcement action, PHMSA had created a new substantive obligation for EPNG
that had not previously been articulated by the agency. The company argued that a court’s
independent review would find that PHMSA’s “interpretation is procedurally defective, arbitrary
or capricious in substance, or is manifestly contrary to the statute or regulation.”5
Second, EPNG argued that PHMSA had misapplied 49 CFR § 191.15 because the regulation did
not require an operator to supplement its incident report when the root cause of the incident
remained unknown. Third, Respondent questioned whether an operator was required to submit a
supplemental report when PHMSA and local landowners had been kept fully informed of the
status of the root cause investigation. Fourth, Respondent argued that the allegation of violation
was “moot” because EPNG had supplemented its incident report before issuance of the Notice.
Respondent also requested a reduction in the proposed civil penalty, which is addressed in the
Assessment of Penalty section below.
As for its first argument, EPNG argued that PHMSA had not previously articulated a position or
provided any guidance on supplemental reports prior to issuing the Notice in this case. The
company contended that its first notice of the agency’s interpretation of 49 CFR § 191.15 was
through the Notice and that only then did the company learn that PHMSA interpreted the
regulation as requiring an operator to supplement an incident report whenever the company
received interim failure analysis data. Since the Notice reflected a new requirement imposed by
PHMSA, EPNA argued that a court would likely find that the requirement had been unlawfully
promulgated because there had been no notice-and-comment rulemaking process, as required
under the Administrative Process Act (APA). EPNG further contended that even if PHMSA’s
action were not deemed a new substantive requirement but was “merely interpretive in nature,”
the agency would still not be entitled to any deference by the courts under Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) and other APA cases.
I find Respondent’s argument specious. First and foremost, I reject the notion that the
supplemental reporting requirement, as applied here, is somehow novel or that it imposes any
new substantive requirement not clearly articulated in the regulation itself. The text of the
regulation states: “Where additional related information is obtained after a report is submitted…,
the operator shall make a supplemental report as soon as practicable…” The metallurgical report
received by EPNG falls within the scope of “additional related information” that must be shared
with PHMSA through the filing of a timely supplemental report.
Second, the interpretation applied by PHMSA in this case is nothing new. The agency had
previously articulated its position and provided guidance on supplemental reports prior to issuing
the Notice. This included prior enforcement actions6 and a 1994 Advisory Bulletin reminding
5 Closing at 3.
6 E.g., In the Matter of Venoco, Inc., Final Order, CPF No. 5-2002-2001 (Nov. 29, 2004); and In the Matter of
CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company, Final Order, CPF No. 4-2009-1001 (Nov. 6, 2009); (available at
www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).



4
pipeline facility owners and operators of the need “to submit a supplemental written report
whenever additional relevant information is obtained concerning the particular incident or
accident.”7
As for Respondent’s contention that PHMSA has somehow “abused its discretion” under the
APA by interpreting and applying 49 CFR § 191.15 in an adjudication rather than through a
rulemaking, I do not agree. PHMSA is not necessarily required to undertake a rulemaking in
order to interpret its own regulations. In fact, courts have long recognized the discretion of
agencies to set forth regulatory interpretations either by adjudication or through rulemaking.8
However, as stated above, PHMSA had previously articulated its position and provided guidance
on supplemental reports prior to issuing the Notice in this case; therefore, PHMSA did not
engage in any sort of de facto rulemaking by issuing the Notice.
As for EPNG’s second argument that 49 CFR § 191.15 does not require an operator to
supplement an incident report when the root cause of the incident remains unknown, this
contention is based largely on Respondent’s reading of Line 25 of part F7 of the incident report
form, which provides two alternative boxes for an operator to check when the cause of an
accident remains unknown. The first indicates that the company’s investigation is “complete.”
The second indicates that the cause is “Still Under Investigation (submit a supplemental report
when the investigation is complete).” EPNG contends that these two alternatives suggest
PHMSA interprets § 191.15(b) to mean that a supplemental report is not required so long as an
operator’s investigation is still incomplete.
At the hearing, PHMSA asserted that the regulation clearly requires that an operator file one or
more supplemental reports whenever an operator receives any changes or additional information
related to the incident in the original report, not just when an investigation has been completed. I
agree. The regulation provides a straightforward requirement under which operators must
submit a supplemental report whenever they obtain additional information relevant to the cause
of the incident or the extent of damages.
9 I find that the metallurgical analysis in this case
contained such additional relevant information.
Depending on the circumstances, an operator may supplement an incident report several times
before an investigation is complete, as additional information becomes available. Just because
an investigation has not been completed is no reason to fail to comply with § 191.15(b). In fact,
a reading to the contrary would mean that if an investigation were never completed or if it took
years to make a final determination of the cause of a failure, an operator might never need to file
a supplemental report or file one several years later. I do not believe such a result was ever
intended or contemplated by the regulation.
7 Certain Requirements Applying to Supplemental Incident/Accident Reports and Estimated Property Damage
Totals, Advisory Bulletin (ADB-94-01), January 13, 1994.
8 NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267, 292–94 (1974) (stating that an agency is “not precluded from
announcing new principles in an adjudicative proceeding”).
9 49 C.F.R. § 191.5.



5
As for Respondent’s third argument that it did not need to file a supplemental report in this case
because EPNG had kept PHMSA and local landowners informed of the status of its investigation
and of its actions under the corrective action order (CAO),10 the company testified that it held a
town hall meeting and delivered various written communications to the residents in the
community.11
In response, PHMSA officials responded that supplemental incident reports serve a purpose
separate and distinct from the need to keep the agency or the community abreast of the
company’s investigation or corrective actions under a CAO. The agency argued, on the contrary,
that an operator’s compliance with reporting requirements helps PHMSA to understand,
measure, and assess the performance of individual operators and industry, and to integrate
pipeline safety data to allow a more comprehensive understanding and assessment of risk. While
I appreciate the company’s public awareness efforts and its actions to satisfy the requirements of
the CAO, they are no substitute for filing supplemental reports under 49 CFR § 191.15.
As for Respondent’s fourth argument that the allegation of violation is rendered moot because
EPNG had already supplemented its incident report before issuance of the Notice, PHMSA
submitted evidence that agency officials had inquired about the supplemental report in
August 2010, at which point the company confirmed that it had not yet filed the report.12 The
company filed its supplemented report on September 2, 2010, and the Notice was issued on
September 10, 2010, approximately eight months after the report should have been filed. The
allegation of violation is certainly not rendered moot simply because the supplemental report had
been filed by the date of the Notice; the violation took place over a period of months prior to the
filing of the Notice.
In summary, I find that the meaning of §191.15 is clear from the plain language of the
regulation: “Where additional related information is obtained after a report is submitted under
paragraph (a) of this section, the operator shall make a supplemental report as soon as
practicable…” I further find that on December 10, 2009, the company received the results of a
metallurgical analysis identifying additional information, triggering a required update of the
information originally reported, but that EPNG failed to submit a supplemental report until
September 2, 2010, approximately eight months after obtaining the results of the metallurgical
analysis. Accordingly, I find Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(b), by failing to make a
supplemental report as soon as practicable after obtaining additional information related to a
pipeline incident for which it had filed an incident report.
This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action
taken against Respondent.
10 In the Matter of El Paso Natural Gas Western Operations Group, Corrective Action Order, C.P.F. No. 4-2009-
1021H (Nov. 10, 2009) (available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement). The CAO required El Paso to take
certain corrective actions with respect to the Failure.
11 EPNG Hearing Submittal at Tab 6.
12 Violation Report at 4.



6
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under
49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s
ability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing
business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without
any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.
The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $20,000 for the violations cited above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $20,000 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 191.15(b), for failing to submit a supplemental written report as soon as practicable
after obtaining additional information related to the Failure. EPNG requested a reduced penalty
for several reasons, including the fact that the company had no prior violations of this nature, its
good-faith attempts to comply by working with PHMSA and its ongoing communications with
PHMSA and the community, and its prompt corrective action after PHMSA requested the
supplemental report. Further, EPNG argued that it had found no evidence that PHMSA had
penalized any other operator for a failure to supplement an Incident Form.
I find these arguments unconvincing. As discussed above, I found that the company had a clear
responsibility to submit a supplemental report whenever it obtained additional relevant
information about an incident. Upon review of the record, I find that the eventual filing of the
supplemental report after PHMSA’s inquiry in September 2010 does not warrant a reduction in
the proposed penalty. As demonstrated by the record, EPNG’s history of compliance and the
low gravity of the violation had already been factored into the proposed penalty. As stated
above, PHMSA has issued civil penalties for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(b). 13 Respondent’s
argument that the proposed civil penalty is dissimilar to previous past cases does not support
reduction or elimination of the penalty.14
The timely filing of written incident reports provides important information to PHMSA about an
incident, in considerably more detail than can be collected when reported telephonically. In
addition, data collected by the agency about incidents contributes to the effectiveness of
PHMSA’s safety program by developing an understanding of how and why pipeline incidents
occur. Important information such as the cause and type of failure, type of pipe, and extent of
harm to public and property help PHMSA determine whether there is a need to take a closer look
at the operations and maintenance of a particular pipeline facility, or whether to evaluate and
13 See, e.g., In the CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co., Final Order, CPF 4-2009-1001, (Nov. 6, 2009)
(available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).
14 Even if the present case were similar to past ones, the Supreme Court has held that absent a statutory provision to
the contrary, “uniformity of sanctions for similar violations” is not required. See Butz v. Glover Livestock
Commission Company, Inc., 411 U.S. 182, 186-87 (1973).



7
update current safety regulations or to issue new ones.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $20,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(b).
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The
Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.
Failure to pay the $20,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate
in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for violations of
49 C.F.R. § 191.15(b). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the
transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the
applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director indicates that
Respondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance order:
1. With respect to the violation of § 191.15(b) (Item 1), Respondent has submitted a
supplemental incident report specifying the apparent cause of the November 5, 2009
failure on EPNG’s Line 1102 pipeline.
Accordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,
the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has the right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of
this Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline
Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC
20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA
will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the Final Order by
the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other
requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of
any civil penalty assessed but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order, including
any required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final
Order becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is



8
waived.
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

420101005_NOPV PCP PCO_09102010_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
September 10, 2010
Mr. Michael Catt
Vice President of Field Operations, El Paso Natural Gas Western Operations Group
El Paso Natural Gas Company
2 North Nevada Street
Colorado Springs, CO 80944
CPF 4-2010-1005
Dear Mr. Catt:
On November 5-9, 2009, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code investigated an
incident that occurred on November 5, 2009 on El Paso Natural Gas Company’s (EPNG)
Dumas-to-Amarillo, 24-inch, Line 1102 natural gas pipeline. The incident occurred at Mile Post
42 + 4250, in Potter County, Texas, approximately 15 miles west of Amarillo, Texas, in or near
the unincorporated community of Bushland.
As a result of the incident investigation, it appears that you have committed probable violations
of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The item inspected
and the probable violation is:
1. § 191.15 Transmission and gathering systems: Incident report.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, each operator of a
transmission or a gathering pipeline system shall submit Department of



Transportation Form RSPA F 7100.2 as soon as practicable but not more than 30
days after detection of an incident required to be reported under § 191.5.
(b) Where additional related information is obtained after a report is submitted
under paragraph (a) of this section, the operator shall make a supplemental report
as soon as practicable with a clear reference by date and subject to the original
report.
EPNG failed to file a supplemental report for the Line 1102 pipeline system incident that
occurred on November 5, 2009 as soon as practicable after additional information was obtained.
At approximately 12:09 AM MST on November 5, 2009, a rupture occurred on the EPNG bi-
directional, Dumas-to-Amarillo, 24-inch, Line 1102 natural gas pipeline at Mile Post 42 + 4250,
in Potter County, Texas, approximately 15 miles west of Amarillo, Texas, in or near the
unincorporated community of Bushland. The incident was reported to the National Response
Center (NRC Report # 922663), and PHMSA Investigators responded to investigate the incident.
Certain pipe segments and appurtenances from the line section in which the failure occurred,
including line pipe and appurtenances, were transported from the failure site to Stress
Engineering Services (SES) in Houston, TX for analysis. EPMG submitted an original accident
report to PHMSA (Form 7100-2) on December 2, 2009 (20090125 – 6802). This report listed as
the cause “Unknown – Still Under Investigation” with little additional description in Part “G” of
the report. A metallurgical failure analysis was performed by SES; the SES Metallurgical
Failure Report # PN1251041 was provided by SES to the operator on or about December 10,
2009; and the probable cause of the rupture was determined to be the result of a one-time
overload event on laminations within the carrier pipe wall in a region along the reinforcing
saddle-to-carrier pipe fillet weld. As of August 27, 2010, a supplemental PHMSA 7100-2 report
has not been filed. The final metallurgical failure report with information as to the apparent
cause of the incident is considered additional related information.
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000
for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and
supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that
you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $20,000 as follows:
Item number PENALTY
1 $ 20,000
2



Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to item number 1 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to EPNG.
Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this
Notice.
Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators
in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be
advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being
made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for
confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you
must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for
confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information
qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days
of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this
Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in
this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2010-1005 and for each document
you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
R. M. Seeley
Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
3



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to El Paso Natural Gas Company (EPNG) a
Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance
of EPNG with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to failure to comply with the
requirements of §191.15, EPNG must immediately file a supplemental DOT Form 7100.2
report for number 20090125 specifying the apparent cause of failure of the Bushland, TX
Line 1102 pipeline incident and updating any other information obtained since the
incident. If all of the information about the incident is known, this information must be
included and the incident report filed as a final report.
2. EPNG shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with
fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to R.M. Seeley, Director, Southwest
Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Costs shall be reported
in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures,
studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other
changes to pipeline infrastructure.
4
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 31499