{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420121005","title":"TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-04-25","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 191.15(a), 192.229(c)(1), 192.605(a), 192.615(b)(3), 192.706(a), 192.736(b), 192.743(a), 192.805(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420121005.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420121005.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420121005","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420121005","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 191.15(a),  192.229(c)(1),  192.605(a),  192.615(b)(3),  192.706(a),  192.736(b),  192.743(a),  192.805(b). The case was opened on 2012-04-25 and is reported as closed as of 2014-04-23. Proposed civil penalty: $118,500. Assessed civil penalty: $118,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420121005_Closure_04232014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121005/420121005_Closure_04232014.pdf\n\n420121005_Closure_04232014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121005/420121005_Closure_04232014_text.pdf\n\n420121005_Final Order_12312012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121005/420121005_Final%20Order_12312012.pdf\n\n420121005_Final Order_12312012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121005/420121005_Final%20Order_12312012_text.pdf\n\n420121005_NOPV PCP PCO_04252012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121005/420121005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04252012.pdf\n\n420121005_NOPV PCP PCO_04252012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121005/420121005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04252012_text.pdf\n\n420121005_Operator Withdraw of Request for Hearing and Response to Notice_08312012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121005/420121005_Operator%20Withdraw%20of%20Request%20for%20Hearing%20and%20Response%20to%20Notice_08312012.pdf\n\n420121005_Final Order_12312012_text.pdf\n\nDECEMBER 31, 2012\nMs. Kim Watson\nPresident, Eastern Pipeline Group\nTennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC\nKinder Morgan Building\n1001 Louisiana Street\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2012-1005\nDear Ms. Watson:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $118,500, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nTennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. This is\nto acknowledge receipt of the full penalty amount, by wire transfer dated August 31, 2012.\nWhen the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director,\nSouthwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by\ncertified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under\n49 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. Tom Martin, Vice President, KM Gas Pipeline, 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, TX\n77002\nMr. R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\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____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nTennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, ) )\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nCPF No. 4-2012-1005\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween January and October 21, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Tennessee\nGas Pipeline Company, LLC (TGPL or Respondent), in Cleveland, Edinburg, and Robstown/\nVictoria, Texas, and in Kinder, Natchitoches, Houma, and West Monroe, Louisiana. TGPL, a\nsubsidiary of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP, operates a 13,900-mile pipeline system that\ntransports natural gas from the U.S. Gulf Coast to Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky,\nTennessee, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New Jersey, New York, and the New England\nregion.\n1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated April 25, 2012, 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 TGPL had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 191.15, 192.229, 192.605,\n192.743 and 192.805, assessing a civil penalty of $118,500 for the alleged violations, and\nordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning\nitems required no further action but warned the operator to correct the probable violations or face\nfuture potential enforcement action.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated July 9, 2012 (Response). TGPL requested an\nextension of time to respond and requested a hearing. By letter dated August 31, 2012,\nRespondent withdrew its request for a hearing and thereby authorized the entry of this Final\nOrder without further notice (Supplemental Response). The company did not contest the\nallegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $118,500, as provided in\n49 C.F.R. § 190.227. Payment of the penalty serves to close the case with prejudice to\nRespondent.\n1 At the time of the inspection, the facilities in question were operated by El Paso Pipeline Partners, LP (EPNG). In\nMay 2012, Kinder Morgan acquired EPNG and TGPL.\nhttp://www.kindermorgan.com/business/gas pipelines/east/TGP/ (last accessed on November 7, 2012).\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, TGPL did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nParts 191 and 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(a), 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\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(a) by failing to submit a written\nincident report on RPSA Form 7100.23 (Form 7100.2 ) as soon as practicable, but not more than\n30 days, after detection of an incident required to be reported under 49 C.F.R. § 191.5.4\nSpecifically, it alleged that on July 26, 2010, a pinhole leak occurred in a girth weld on the\nbottom of Respondent’s pipeline, resulting in a release of natural gas. TGPL did not submit\nForm 7100.2 until September 14, 2010, approximately 50 days after detection of the incident.5\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(a) by failing to submit an incident\nreport on RSPA Form 7100.2 as soon as practicable, but not more than 30 days, after detection of\nan incident required to be reported under 49 C.F.R. § 191.5.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.229(c)(1), which states:\n§ 192.229 Limitations on welders.\n(a) …\n(c) A welder qualified under § 192.227(a)--\n(1) May not weld on pipe to be operated at a pressure that produces a\nhoop stress of 20 percent or more of [Specified Minimum Yield Strength]\nSMYS unless within the preceding 6 calendar months the welder has had\none weld tested and found acceptable under the sections 6 or 9 of\n[American Petroleum Institute] API Standard 1104 (incorporated by\nreference, see § 192.7). Alternatively, welders may maintain an ongoing\nqualification status by performing welds tested and found acceptable\n2 The Notice erroneously cited § 191.15(a) as it had been amended, effective November 26, 2010. The amendment,\nhowever, did not make any substantive changes in the reporting requirement.\n3 PHMSA Form 7100-2, formerly named Form RSPA F 7100.2.\n4 Sections 191.5 and 191.3 provide that incidents must be reported if they involve a release of gas from a pipeline, a\ndeath or personal injury necessitating in-patient hospitalization, or estimated property damage of $50,000 or more.\n5 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report) (April 26, 2011) (on file with PHMSA), at 78 and Exhibit 1.\n\n\n\n3\nunder the above acceptance criteria at least twice each calendar year, but\nat intervals not exceeding 7½ months. A welder qualified under an earlier\nedition of standard listed in § 192.7 of this part may weld but may not\nrequalify under that earlier edition;….\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.229(c)(1) by failing to ensure that\nwelders did not weld on pipe operated at a pressure producing a hoop stress of 20 percent or\nmore of SMYS unless the welder has had one weld tested and found acceptable under Sections 6\nor 9 of API Standard 1104 within the past six months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nPHMSA’s inspection found multiple instances, as more fully described in the Notice and\nViolation Report, where welders on Respondent’s pipeline had not been qualified within the\npreceding six calendar months in accordance with Sections 6 or 9 of API Standard 1104.6\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.229(c)(1) by failing to ensure\nthat welders did not weld on pipe operated at a pressure that produces a hoop stress of 20 percent\nor more of SMYS unless the welder had one weld tested and properly qualified within the\npreceding six calendar months in accordance with Sections 6 or 9 of API Standard 1104.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), which states:\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each\npipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and\nmaintenance activities and for emergency response. For transmission\nlines, the manual must also include procedures for handling abnormal\noperations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.\nThis manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system\ncommence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations\nwhere operations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its own\nmanual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance (O&M) activities.\nSpecifically, it alleged that TGPL failed to follow its Operating and Maintenance Procedures,\nSection 302: Pressure Control and Overpressure Protection, Sub Section 10, which required\nTGPL employees to witness, document, and provide a witness signature on either a company\nform or an operator-provided document indicating that the testing and maintenance activity had\nbeen completed.\n7\n6 Violation Report at 7-31 and Exhibits 2A-2D.\n7 TGPL’s O&M Procedure Section 302: Pressure Control and Overpressure Protection, Sub Section 10, stated:\n“The inspection, testing and maintenance of overpressure equipment located on pipeline facilities connected to El\nPaso facilities but operated by other companies must be witnessed by Operations personnel qualified for that task.”\nFurther, Appendix D of this section required documentation that the activity had been witnessed by Operations\npersonnel qualified for the task. Violation Report Exhibit 3.\n\n\n\n4\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that during 2007 through the time of the inspection, TGPL failed\nto follow its own procedure for witnessing and documenting the testing and maintenance of\noverpressure protection equipment installed at the company’s HILCORP Station. The\ncompany’s records show that the last time its personnel witnessed the activity was on\nJune 16, 2006.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its\nmanual of written procedures for conducting O&M activities.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), as quoted above,\nby failing to follow its own manual of written procedures for emergency response. Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that TGPL failed to follow its Operating and Maintenance Procedures 603:\nEmergency Plan/Notification and Investigation, Section 6, which required that appropriate\nlocation employees be trained once each calendar year on the company’s emergency response\nprocedures and that the dates of training and the names of the instructors and trainees present be\ndocumented, with a copy of the documentation filed at the designated location.”8 According to\nthe Notice, the company’s records revealed that several individuals had not been trained for one\nor more years, as more fully described in the Violation Report.9 During PHMSA’s inspection,\nthe company was unable to provide records or demonstrate that the company’s employees and/or\ncontractors had been trained on TGPL’s plan for emergency response.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its\nown manual of written procedures for emergency response.\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a) which states:\n§ 192.743 Pressure limiting and regulator stations: Capacity of relief\ndevices.\n(a) Pressure relief devices at pressure limiting stations and pressure\nregulating stations must have sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to\nwhich they are connected. Except as provided in § 192.739(b), the\ncapacity must be consistent with the pressure limits of § 192.201(a). This\ncapacity must be determine at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at\nleast once each calendar year, by testing the devices in place or by review\nand calculations.\n8 TGPL Operating and Maintenance Procedures 603: Emergency Plan/Notification and Investigation, Section 6\nstates: “The appropriate location employees will be trained once each calendar year in the pipeline or plant\nemergency operating procedures. The methods of training (instruction, discussion, testing, emergency simulation,\nreview of actual emergency, etc.), the dates of training, the instructors, and the trainees present will be documented.\nThe training should be conducted at least once each calendar year and reviewed with all area employees. A copy of\nthe documentation will be filed at the designated location.” Violation Report, Exhibit 4.\n9 Violation Report, Exhibit 4.\n\n\n\n5\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a) by failing to determine, at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once each calendar year, that the pressure relief\ndevices at pressure limiting stations and pressure regulating stations had sufficient capacity to\nprotect the facilities to which they were connected. Specifically, the Notice alleged that TGPL\nfailed to conduct the required tests for two pressure relief devices at its East Bernard Compressor\nStation for three years, as more fully described in the Violation Report.10\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a) by failing to determine,\nat intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once each calendar year, that the pressure relief\ndevices at the East Bernard Compressor Station had sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to\nwhich they were connected.\nItem 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b), which states:\n§ 192.805 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) . . .\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered\ntasks are qualified; . . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b) by failing to ensure through\nevaluation that an employee performing a covered task was properly qualified. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that a TGPL employee performed covered task “038MST: Inspect/troubleshoot/\nRepair Pressure Regulator (Worker Device),” when the employee’s qualification records did not\nshow that the individual had been qualified to perform the task.\n11\nThe PHMSA inspection revealed that during annual breakdown inspections on August 16, 2007,\nand April 2, 2008, the employee in question allegedly installed a new Teflon seal disc kit and an\n“O” ring kit in the pilot regulator located at the company’s station # 9 B-Master Fuel. The\nNotice further alleged that the employee in question had not been directed and observed by a\nqualified individual when covered Task 038MST was performed. The employee had been\nqualified on this covered task on March 17, 2004, but the task constituted a Level A task that\nrequired subsequent qualification at an interval of three years but not to exceed 39 months.12\nThe employee’s qualification had expired on or about June 17, 2007. At the time that the\ncovered task was performed, the employee’s qualification had been expired approximately two\nmonths as of August 16, 2007, and 10 months as of April 2, 2008.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b) by failing to ensure\nthrough evaluation that an employee performing a covered task had been properly qualified.\n10 Violation Report at 59 and Exhibit 7.\n11 Violation Report, Exhibit 8.\n12 Id.\n\n\n\n6\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. 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 $118,500 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $11,400 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 191.15(a), for failing to submit a written incident report as soon as practicable, but\nnot more than 30 days, after detection of the incident required to be reported under\n49 C.F.R. § 191.5. Specifically, on July 26, 2010, an incident on Respondent’s pipeline resulted\nin a release of natural gas but TGPL did not submit Form 7100.2 until September 14, 2010,\napproximately 50 days after detection of the incident. TGPL paid the proposed penalty for this\nallegation of violation, which serves to close the case with prejudice to Respondent.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $11,400 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(a).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $16,100 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.229(c)(1), for failing to ensure that welders did not weld on pipe to be operated\nat a pressure producing a hoop stress of 20 percent or more of SMYS unless the welders had one\nweld tested and found acceptable under Sections 6 or 9 of API Standard 1104 within the previous\nsix months. TGPL paid the proposed penalty for this allegation of violation, which serves to\nclose the case with prejudice to Respondent. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $16,100 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.229(c)(1).\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $15,700 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), for failing to follow its own written Operating and Maintenance\nProcedures, Section 302: Pressure Control and Overpressure Protection, Sub Section 10, which\nrequired TGPL employees to document that an O&M activity had been completed. TGPL paid\nthe proposed penalty for this allegation of violation, which serves to close the case with prejudice\nto Respondent. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria,\nI assess Respondent a civil penalty of $15,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a).\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $17,400 for Respondent’s violation of\n\n\n\n7\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), for failing to follow its own written procedures for emergency response,\nas set forth in its Operating and Maintenance Procedures 603: Emergency Plan/Notification and\nInvestigation, Section 6. TGPL paid the proposed penalty for this allegation of violation, which\nserves to close the case with prejudice to Respondent. Accordingly, having reviewed the record\nand considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $17,400 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a).\nItem 7: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $42,700 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a), for failing to determine, at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least\nonce each calendar year, that the pressure relief devices at the East Bernard Compressor Station\nhad sufficient capacity to protect the facilities. TGPL paid the proposed penalty for this\nallegation of violation, which serves to close the case with prejudice to Respondent.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $42,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a).\nItem 8: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $15,200 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.808(b), for failing to ensure through evaluation that an employee performing a\ncovered task had been properly qualified to perform the task. TGPL paid the proposed penalty\nfor this allegation of violation, which serves to close the case with prejudice to Respondent.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $15,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a total civil penalty of $118,500, which has already been paid by Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 7 in the Notice for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a). 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. Pursuant to the authority of\n49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following\nactions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.743(a) (Item 7), Respondent must perform an\naudit to ensure that pressure regulators and relief devices that protect TGPL’s East\nBernard Compressor Station from overpressure are in compliance with § 192.743. As\npart of the audit, Respondent must:\nA. Develop a plan to calculate the capacity of regulators and relief valves installed\non TGPL’s facility.\nB. Conduct a survey of overpressure protection devices currently installed on\nTGPL’s natural gas pipeline system. The survey must evaluate the overpressure\nprotection devices and verify the data collected, such as the inlet and outlet size,\nthe orifice area and the coefficient of actual discharge, in order to perform sizing\n\n\n\n8\ncalculations. TGPL’s D.O.T. Compliance Services Group must ensure that the\nhighest peak throughput provided by the company’s Plant Service Group is\naccurate.\nC. Identify deficiencies observed during the review of personnel performance in\npreparing and following TGPL procedures for calculating sizing capacities.\nTGPL must integrate the findings and amend its procedures.\nD. Based upon results of the plan, verify that the regulator and relief devices installed\non TGPL’s facilities have adequate capacities, as required by 49 CFR § 192.743.\nIf the capacity is found to be insufficient, TGPL must install/modify the\nequipment to provide the required capacity.\nTGPL must complete Item A within 30 days and Items B, C, and D within 365 days\nfollowing receipt of the Final Order.\nTGPL must also submit documentation to demonstrate completion of the items above\nto Mr. R. M. Seeley, Region Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety,\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.\n2. It is requested that TGPL maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director.\nIt is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated\nwith preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and 2) total cost\nassociated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 5, 6, and 9, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to\nbe warning items. The warning(s) were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.615(b)(3) (Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to review\nemployee activity to determine whether the company’s emergency procedures\nwere effectively followed during an emergency. Specifically, TGPL did not have\nadequate documentation to demonstrate that the company had reviewed its\n\n\n\n9\nemployees’ activities directly following an August 2007 emergency to verify the\neffectiveness of its procedures;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.736(b)(1)-(2) and (c) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to\nmaintain gas detection and alarm equipment at TGPL’s Cleveland and Jasper\ncompressor stations. Specifically, random field tests found gas detectors had\ninoperable building horns (audible alarm) and strobe lights (visual alarm) to warn\npersons about to enter the building and persons inside the building of the danger;\nand\n49 C.F.R. § 192.706(a) (Item 9) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to conduct a\nleakage survey in a newly identified Class 3 location, using leak detector\nequipment. Specifically, TGPL allegedly did not conduct a leakage survey of a\nnewly identified class location upgrade in June of 2007, and did not include the\nsection of pipeline in the company’s November 2007 leakage survey. TGPL did\nnot survey the section of pipe until April 10, 2008.\nIf OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be\nsubject to future enforcement action.\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\n420121005_NOPV PCP PCO_04252012_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nApril 25, 2012\nMr. William Cope\nVice President, Eastern Operations\nTennessee Gas Pipeline Company\n569 Brookwoood Center, Suite 501\nBirmingham, AL 35209\nCPF 4-2012-1005\nDear Mr. Cope:\nOn multiple occasions from January through October 21, 2011, a representative of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United\nStates Code was onsite and inspected Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (TGPL) in Cleveland,\nEdinburg, Robstown/Victoria, Texas and Kinder, Natchitoches, Houma, and West Monroe in\nLouisiana. TGPL is part of the El Paso Pipeline Group (EPPG).\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. §191.15 Transmission Systems, gathering systems, and liquefied natural gas\nfacilities. Incident report.\n(a) Transmission or Gathering. Each operator of a transmission or a gathering\npipeline system must submit DOT Form PHMSA F 7100.2 as soon as practicable\nbut not more than 30 days after detection of an incident required to be reported\nunder § 191.5 of this part.\n\n\n\nTGPL failed to submit an incident report within 30 days for the 523M-100 pipeline system\nincident (a pinhole leak in girth weld at approximately the 6:00 o’clock position on the bottom of\nthe pipe caused release of natural gas) that occurred on July 26, 2010. This incident was\nreported under NRC # 948908.\nTGPL submitted the Form 7100.2 for this incident on September 14, 2010 stating this is an\noriginal as well as final report.\n2. §192.229 Limitations on welders.\n(c) A welder qualified under §192.227(a)–\n(1) May not weld on pipe to be operated at a pressure that produces a hoop stress of\n20 percent or more of SMYS unless within the preceding 6 calendar months the\nwelder has had one weld tested and found acceptable under the sections 6 or 9 of\nAPI Standard 1104 (incorporated by reference, see §192.7). Alternatively, welders\nmay maintain an ongoing qualification status by performing welds tested and found\nacceptable under the above acceptance criteria at least twice each calendar year, but\nat intervals not exceeding 7 ½ months. A welder qualified under an earlier edition\nof a standard listed in §192.7 of this part may weld but may not requalify under that\nearlier edition; and..\nOn multiple occasions, TGPL allowed welders to weld on their pipeline without proper testing of\nthe welder’s weld. Related to this requirement TGPL maintains TGPL Procedure “WM 020:\nGeneral Welding Requirements.” Section 2, item 6 states:\n“The welding inspector is responsible for ensuring that no welder shall weld gas piping\nunless, within the preceding 6 calendar months, the welder has made a weld in\naccordance with either API 1104 or ASME BPV and had it tested either destructively or\nnon-destructively in accordance with API 1104.”\nTGPL reported a failure under NRC # 961743 and as a result the company replaced the failed\nsection (Project # 150385) on 12/11/2010. While reviewing records associated with qualification\nof welders used on this project, the PHMSA inspector found the company welder was originally\nqualified on 10/06/09. Although, TGPL provided a welding coupon test report indicating the\nwelder qualification was renewed by radiography on 07/27/2010, it does not meet the code\nrequirement. TGPL welder went beyond the allowed six months timeframe and he cannot be re-\nqualified by just radiography. The welder is required to qualify by more comprehensive test to\nregain his qualification which is by means of destructive test.\nAs a result, the welder’s original qualification expired on approximately 4/6/2010. Prior to\nmaking a tie-in weld on 12/11/2010 (project # 150385); the welder should have been required to\n2\n\n\n\nrepeat his original qualification. Instead, TGPL’s welding inspector allowed the welder to weld\non this project after exceeding the six months without having the weld tested.\nDuring the inspection PHMSA found additional instances where a welder welded without proper\nqualification.\nWhile reviewing TGPL’s project PID 127375 in the Corpus Christi area, the PHMSA inspector\nfound that the company welder was re-qualified by radiography on 04/26/2007. TGPL did not\nprovide documentation indicating that the same welder had one weld tested and found acceptable\nunder the sections 6 or 9 of API Standard 1104 within the preceding six months since his last\nqualification. As a result, welder qualification expired on approximately 10/27/2007. Although,\nTGPL provided a welding coupon test report indicating the welder qualification was renewed by\nradiography on 03/19/2008, it does not meet the code requirement. TGPL welder went beyond\nthe allowed six months timeframe and he cannot be re-qualified by just radiography. The welder\nis required to qualify by more comprehensive test to regain his qualification which is by means\nof destructive test.\nThe company welding inspector allowed this welder to make one side of the three welds (BTH1,\nBTH2, and BTH3) on project PID 127375 between 7/22/2008 and 8/17/2008. According to the\ndocumentation provided by TGPL, the PHMSA inspector learned that all three welds failed and\nwere subsequently repaired. Of the three failed welds that were repaired, one failed again and\nresulted in a cut out.\nWhile reviewing welder qualification records associated with TGPL project PID 140649 in\nIberia Parish, LA, TGPL failed to provide documentation indicating three company welders had\none weld tested and found acceptable under the sections 6 or 9 of API Standard 1104 within\npreceding six months since their last qualification.\nWelder 1 was originally qualified on 10/06/2009. TGPL did not provide documentation\nindicating welder 1 qualification was renewed by radiography within the preceding 6 calendar\nmonths since 10/06/2009. Welder 2 qualification was renewed by radiography on 4/15/2009.\nTGPL did not provide documentation indicating welder 2 qualification was renewed by\nradiography within the preceding 6 calendar months since 4/15/2009. Welder 3 qualification\nwas renewed by radiographic inspection on 4/17/2009. TGPL did not provide documentation\nindicating welder 3 qualification was renewed by radiography within the preceding 6 calendar\nmonths since 4/17/2009. Although, TGPL provided a welding coupon test reports indicating\nwelders qualification was renewed by radiography on 7/27/2010 for welder 1, 2/18/2010 for\nwelder 2 and 2/18/2010 for welder 3, it does not meet the code requirement. All three welders\nwent beyond the allowed six months timeframe and cannot re-qualify by radiography. These\nwelders required to qualify by more comprehensive test to regain their qualification which is by\nmeans of destructive test. As a result, all three welders’ qualification expired on approximately\n4/6/2010, 10/15/2009, and 10/17/2009 respectively.\n3\n\n\n\nThe company welding inspector allowed these three welders to make welds on project PID\n127375 between 10/4/2010 and 11/19/2010 (in-service date: 11/19/2010).\nWhile reviewing the welder qualification records associated with TGPL project PID 151548 in\nNatchitoches area, the PHMSA inspector found a company welder was originally qualified on\n10/06/2009. Although, TGPL provided a welding coupon test report indicating the welder\nqualification was renewed by radiography on 07/27/2010, it does not meet the code requirement.\nTGPL welder went beyond the allowed six months timeframe and he cannot be re-qualified by\njust radiography. The welder is required to qualify by more comprehensive test to regain his\nqualification which is by means of destructive test. As a result, welder qualification expired on\napproximately 4/6/2010.\nThe company welding inspector allowed this welder to make weld # A21T on aforementioned\nproject on 6/7/2011.\n3. §192.605 Procedure manual for operations, maintenance, and emergency\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a\nmanual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance\nactivities and for emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual must\nalso included and updated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year. This manual must be prepared\nbefore operations of a pipeline system commence. Appropriate parts of the\nmanual must be kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are\nconducted.\nTGPL failed to follow their procedures relating to the oversight of the testing for over pressure\nprotection. Specifically, PHMSA found that TGPL failed to witness testing and maintenance of\noverpressure equipment located on the pipeline facility that’s connected to EPPG’s facility but\noperated by another company, as required by the company procedure for four consecutive years.\nTGPL’s Operating and Maintenance procedures, Section 302: Pressure Control and Overpressure\nProtection, Sub Section 10 states:\n“The inspection, testing and maintenance of overpressure equipment located on pipeline\nfacilities connected to El Paso facilities but operated by other companies must be\nwitnessed by Operations personnel qualified for that task.\n” Further, Appendix D of this\nsection states that documentation that this activity was witnessed by Company personnel\nmust also be completed. A witness signature on either the Company form or operator\nprovided document is required.\n”\nTGPL failed to witness testing and maintenance of overpressure protection equipment installed\nat HILCORP Station, (company station number 12497, main line: 500-1, mile post 507G-\n109+3.16) during 2007 through the time of inspection. According to the documentation\n4\n\n\n\nprovided by TGPL, the last time the company employee witnessed the inspection activity to\nassure that the activity was being performed safely in manner such that the OPP equipment will\nbe protective to TGPL’s facility was on June 16, 2006.\nThe PHMSA inspector visited this site during the field portion of the audit and learned there is a\nrelief valve, Hi/Lo setting and block valve protecting TGPL’s facility. These overpressure\nprotection equipment is being inspected by a contractor hired by HILCORP who submitted the\ninspection completion report for the aforementioned years.\nThe TGPL’s employee completed the regulator and relief valve inspection report based on\nresults submitted by the contractor but, failed to witness it for the calendar years 2007, 2008,\n2009, and 2010.\n4. §192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of\nwritten procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for\nemergency response. For transmission lines, the manual must also include\nprocedures for handling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and\nupdated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each\ncalendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system\ncommence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\n(e) Surveillance, emergency response, and accident investigation. The procedures\nrequired by §§192.613(a), 192.615, and 192.617 must be included in the manual required\nby paragraph (a) of this section.\n§192.615 Emergency plans.\n(a) Each operator shall establish written procedures to minimize the hazard resulting from\na gas pipeline emergency. At a minimum, the procedures must provide for the following:\n(1) Receiving, identifying, and classifying notices of events which require immediate\nresponse by the operator.\n(2) Establishing and maintaining adequate means of communication with appropriate fire,\npolice, and other public official","truncated":true,"body_characters":61509}