{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420121018","title":"NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CO OF AMERICA (KMI) — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-10-24","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.479(a), 192.481, 192.605(a), 192.611(d), 192.615(b)(3), 192.807.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420121018.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420121018.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420121018","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420121018","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CO OF AMERICA (KMI). PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.479(a),  192.481,  192.605(a),  192.611(d),  192.615(b)(3),  192.807. The case was opened on 2012-10-24 and is reported as closed as of 2013-11-21. Proposed civil penalty: $122,700. Assessed civil penalty: $122,700. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420121018_Closure_11212013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121018/420121018_Closure_11212013.pdf\n\n420121018_Closure_11212013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121018/420121018_Closure_11212013_text.pdf\n\n420121018_Final Order_02282013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121018/420121018_Final%20Order_02282013.pdf\n\n420121018_Final Order_02282013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121018/420121018_Final%20Order_02282013_text.pdf\n\n420121018_NOPV PCP PCO_10242012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121018/420121018_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_10242012.pdf\n\n420121018_NOPV PCP PCO_10242012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121018/420121018_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_10242012_text.pdf\n\n420121018_Operator_Response__11282012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121018/420121018_Operator_Response__11282012.pdf\n\n420121018_Closure_11212013_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nNovember 21, 2013\nMr. M. Dwayne Burton\nVice President Gas Pipeline Operations\nNatural Gas Pipeline Company of America\n500 Dallas, Suite 1000\nHouston, TX 77002\nCPF 4-2012-1018\nDear Mr. Burton:\nOn February 28, 2013, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC a Final Order in the above-referenced\ncase. This Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our\nreview of the documentation you provided June 7, October 10 and November 11, 13, 2013 and\nconfirmation of payment of the Civil Penalty, it has been determined that you have complied\nwith the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n420121018_NOPV PCP PCO_10242012_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nOctober 24, 2012\nMr. M. Dwayne Burton\nVice President, Gas Pipeline Operations\nNatural Gas Pipeline Company of America\n500 Dallas, Suite 1000\nHouston, TX 77002\nCPF 4-2012-1018\nDear Mr. Burton:\nOn multiple occasions between January 20, 2011 and August 9, 2012, representatives of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of\n49 United States Code were onsite and inspected Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America’s\n(NGPL) Gulf Coast pipelines from South Texas to the Chicago Metro area.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the\nprobable violation(s) are:\n1. §192.479 Atmospheric Corrosion Control; General\n(a) Each operator must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is\nexposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this section.\nDuring the field inspection of the Robstown area, a PHMSA inspector observed that NGPL\nfailed to clean and coat portions of their pipeline exposed to the atmosphere at several locations\n\n\n\nwithin the Robstown Compressor Station 341. The PHMSA inspector observed disbonded\ncoating, atmospheric corrosion, and severe pitting at flanged areas.\n2. §192.481 Atmospheric Corrosion Control: Monitoring.\n(b) During inspections the operator must give particular attention to pipe at soil-to-\nair interfaces, under thermal insulation, under disbonded coatings, at pipe supports,\nin splash zones, at deck penetrations, and in spans over water.\nNGPL did not adequately inspect pipe located at a pipe support for atmospheric corrosion.\nDuring the Wharton Compressor Station 301 field inspection, a PHMSA inspector observed that\nNGPL had not thoroughly inspected for corrosion of pipe at pipe supports. NGPL field\npersonnel are not able to perform an atmospheric evaluation of the pipe condition underneath\nconcrete pipe supports. At the present time, NGPL is inspecting for atmospheric corrosion by\nobserving the rust stains that may be forming at the edges of the concrete supports. A more\neffective means of monitoring for atmospheric corrosion must be implemented. NGPL has failed\nto meet the requirements of §192.481 by failing to adequately inspect for atmospheric corrosion\nat pipe supports.\n3. §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 one each\ncalendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline\nsystem commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations\nwhere operations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nNGPL did not follow their procedures for continuing surveillance reviews. While reviewing\nrecords for District 201 and 311 a PHMSA inspector noted that NGPL did not document any\ncontinuing surveillance reviews prior to the 2011 calendar year. Also, while reviewing records\nfor District 307 it was discovered that for the calendar years 2009, 2010, and 2011 the Technical\nServices Manager had not signed off as an evaluator of the district’s continuing surveillance\nreview.\nO&M Procedure 218, Continuing Surveillance section 3 states “annually, not to exceed 15\nmonths the Operations Manager shall meet with subject matter experts as required to review\ninspection records and documents that comprise continuing surveillance. Continuing\nsurveillance shall be conducted to identify any pipeline facilities experiencing unusual operating\nand maintenance conditions.”\n2\n\n\n\nSection 5 continues and states: “Document each review of the District's continuing surveillance\nprogram in accordance with O&M Procedure 1700 - Inspection and Maintenance: I&M\nProcedure 1-0203.00 – Continuing Surveillance.”\nI&M Procedure 1-0203.00- Continuing Surveillance with a revision date of 2005-07-01 states\n“Evaluate the District’s continuing surveillance program with Operations management and\nTechnical Services Manager. Modify the program as required for each district following the\nguidelines contained in O&M Procedure 218.”\n4. §192.611 Change in class location: Confirmation or revision of maximum allowable\noperating pressure.\n(d) Confirmation or revision of the maximum allowable operating pressure that is\nrequired as a result of a study under §192.609 must be completed within 24 months\nof the change in class location. Pressure reduction under paragraph (a) (1) or (2) of\nthis section within the 24-month period does not preclude establishing a maximum\nallowable operating pressure under paragraph (a)(3) of this section at a later date.\nNGPL did not revise their maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) within 24 months of\na change in class location. While reviewing records for District 307 a PHMSA inspector\nobserved that NGPL had a class location change from Class 1 and 2 to Class 3 on April 27, 2009.\nIt was observed that sections of this class location change’s MAOP could not be confirmed and\nthat a MAOP revision would be required. An MAOP revision was not completed until January\n25, 2012 and exceeded the 24-month period by 9 months.\n5. §192.615 Emergency plans.\n(b) Each operator shall:\n(3) Review employee activities to determine whether the procedures were effectively\nfollowed in each emergency.\nNGPL did not perform a review of employee activities to determine whether the procedures were\neffectively followed during an emergency. While reviewing records for District 309 a PHMSA\ninspector noted that NGPL completed Form 100-45 following an incident that occurred at\nCompressor Station 309 on March 6, 2006 involving a stuck relief valve. From the review of\nthe form, PHMSA could not determine that NGPL performed the required review of activities\nand procedures. More detail in the documentation is necessary in order to demonstrate that such\nreviews are performed as required by the regulations.\n3\n\n\n\n6. §192.807 Recordkeeping.\nEach operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance with this\nsubpart.\n(a) Qualification records shall include:\n(1) Identification of qualified individual(s);\n(2) Identification of the covered tasks the individual is qualified to perform;\n(3) Date(s) of current qualification; and\n(4) Qualification method(s).\n(b) Records supporting an individual’s current qualification shall be maintained\nwhile the individual is performing the covered task. Records of prior qualification\nand records of individuals no longer performing covered tasks shall be retained for\na period of five years.\nNGPL did not maintain operator qualification records for one of its contract welders. While\nreviewing operator qualification records at District 309 a PHMSA inspector requested\nqualification records for a contract welder that had performed covered tasks during a 2008\nlauncher/receiver upgrade project. NGPL did not make the records available during the\ninspection. The covered tasks required were Abnormal Operations (001.01.01), Welding Process\n(024.01.01) and Visual Inspection of Welds (024.02.01).\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 violations and has recommended that\nyou be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $122,700 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n3 $60,300\n4 $41,200\n6 $21,200\nWarning Items\nWith respect to item 5, we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved\nin this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment\nproceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these item(s). Be advised that\nfailure to do so may result in NGPL being subject to additional enforcement action.\n4\n\n\n\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 1 and 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to NGPL.\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 4-2012-1018 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 Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n5\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 Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America\n(NGPL) a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the\ncompliance of NGPL with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. 4. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to coating failure and onset\nof atmospheric corrosion, NGPL must evaluate the piping surface to ensure that\npipe integrity is suitable for the maximum allowable operating pressure of the\npipeline at the Robstown Compressor Station. The areas must then be cleaned\nand coated according to 49 CFR Part 192 and NGPL procedures.\nIn regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to inspection for atmospheric\ncorrosion at pipe supports at the Wharton Compressor Station, NGPL must\nthoroughly evaluate their pipelines at concrete pipe supports and determine if\natmospheric corrosion is present. If atmospheric corrosion is present, NGPL must\nevaluate the piping surface to ensure that pipe integrity is suitable for the\nmaximum allowable operating pressure of the pipeline and clean and coat the\naffected areas according to 49 CFR and NGPL procedures.\nNGPL should complete items 1 and 2 within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that NGPL maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit\nthe total to R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in\ntwo categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans,\nprocedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements,\nadditions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n6\n\n420121018_Final Order_02282013_text.pdf\n\nFEBRUARY 28, 2013\nMr. David Devine\nPresident\nNatural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC\n500 Dallas Street, STE 1000\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2012-1018\nDear Mr. Devine:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $122,700, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nNatural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations.\nThis is to acknowledge receipt of payment of the full penalty amount, by wire transfer, dated\nNovember 29, 2012. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as\ndetermined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service\nof the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided 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. Rodrick M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nMr. M. Dwayne Burton, Vice President, Gas Pipeline Operations, Natural Gas Pipeline\nCompany of America, LLC\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 )\nNatural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC,) )\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n__________________________________________)\nCPF No. 4-2012-1018\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween January 11, 2011, and August 9, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative\nof the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline\nSafety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of\nNational Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC (NGPL or Respondent),1 from South Texas to\nthe Chicago metropolitan area. NGPL operates approximately 9,800 miles of natural gas\npipelines that transport natural gas from production areas in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and\nLouisiana to the Chicago area.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to NGPL,\nby letter dated October 3, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty,\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice), and a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that NGPL had committed\nvarious violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and assessing a civil penalty of $122,700 for the alleged\nviolations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the\nalleged violations. The warning item required no further action but warned the operator to\ncorrect the probable violation or face future potential enforcement action.\nNGPL responded to the Notice by letter dated November 28, 2012 (Response). The company\ndid not contest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $122,700, as\nprovided in 49 C.F.R. § 190.227. Payment of the penalty authorizes PHMSA to make findings\nof violation as to those items. The findings are made with prejudice to Respondent.\n1 NGPL is jointly owned by Myria Holdings Inc., (80%), and Kinder Morgan Kansas, Inc. (20%). Kinder Morgan is\nthe operator of the pipeline pursuant to an operations and reimbursement agreement between the owners.\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS\nIn its Response, NGPL did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part\n192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a), which states:\n§ 192.479 Atmospheric corrosion control: General.\n(a) Each operator must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of\npipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under\nparagraph (c) of this section.\nThe Notice alleged that NGPL violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a) by failing to clean and coat each\npipeline or portion of its pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that NGPL failed to properly clean and coat portions of its pipeline within the Robstown\nCompressor Station 341. The OPS inspector observed disbonded coating, atmospheric\ncorrosion, and severe pitting at flanged areas.\nNGPL did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a) for failing to properly clean and\ncoat each pipeline or portion of its pipeline exposed to the atmosphere.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481, which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline that is exposed to the\natmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion…\n(b) During inspections the operator must give particular attention to\npipe at soil-to-air interfaces, under thermal insulation, under disbanded\ncoatings, at pipe supports, in splash zones, at deck penetrations, and in spans\nover water. . . .\nThe Notice alleged that NGPL violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481 by failing to give particular\nattention to pipe at pipe supports during atmospheric corrosion inspections. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that NGPL failed to properly inspect for atmospheric corrosion at the Wharton\nCompressor Station 301, since company personnel were physically unable to perform a thorough\nevaluation of pipe conditions underneath certain concrete pipe supports.\nNGPL did not contest the proposed penalty for this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based\nupon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481 by\nfailing to give particular attention to pipe at pipe supports during inspections for atmospheric\ncorrosion.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §192.605(a), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n\n\n\n3\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline,\na manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance\nactivities and for emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual\nmust also include procedures for handling abnormal operations. This\nmanual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least one each calendar year. . .\nThe Notice alleged that NGPL violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its own\nmanual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that NGPL failed to document any continuing surveillance\nreviews conducted prior to January 2011 in District 201 and 311, in violation of its own\nOperations & Maintenance (O&M) Procedure 218, Continuing Surveillance, Section 5.\nAdditionally, the company was unable to show that its continuing surveillance program had been\nproperly reviewed by NGPL’s Technical Services Manager for calendar years 2009, 2010, and\n2011, as required by Section 3 of the same procedure.\nNGPL did not contest the proposed penalty for this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based\nupon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by\nfailing to follow its own manual of written procedures for conducting operations and\nmaintenance activities.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.611(d), which states:\n§ 192.611 Change in class location: Confirmation or revision of\nmaximum allowable operating pressure.\n(a) …\n(d) Confirmation or revision of the maximum allowable operating\npressure that is required as a result of a study under §192.609 must be\ncompleted within 24 months of the change in class location. Pressure\nreduction under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section within the 24-month\nperiod does not preclude establishing a maximum allowable operating\npressure under paragraph (a)(3) of this section at a later date.\nThe Notice alleged that NGPL violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.611(d) by failing to properly confirm or\nrevise the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) for a particular pipeline segment\nwithin 24 months of a change in the class location of such segment.\n2 Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that on April 27, 2009, NGPL changed the class location of a certain segment of pipeline\nfrom Class 1 and 2 to Class 3. The Notice alleged that the OPS inspector was unable to\ndetermine whether NGPL had properly confirmed or revised the MAOP for this segment of\npipeline. According to the Notice, the revision in MAOP was not completed until\n2 Under 49 C.F.R. § 192.609, whenever the population density of the area surrounding a continuous one-mile\nsegment of pipeline increases beyond certain density levels set forth in § 192.5, an operator must determine whether\nadditional safeguards should be taken to ensure public safety.\n\n\n\n4\nJanuary 25, 2012, exceeding the 24-month deadline by nine months.\nNGPL did not contest the proposed penalty for this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based\nupon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.611(d) by\nfailing to properly revise the MAOP within 24 months of a change in the class location of a\nparticular pipeline segment.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.807, which states:\n§ 192.807 Recordkeeping.\nEach operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance with\nthis subpart.\n(a) Qualification records shall include:\n(1) Identification of qualified individual(s);\n(2) Identification of the covered tasks the individual is qualified to\nperform;\n(3) Date(s) of current qualification; and\n(4) Qualification method(s).\n(b) Records supporting an individual's current qualification shall be\nmaintained while the individual is performing the covered task. Records of\nprior qualification and records of individuals no longer performing covered\ntasks shall be retained for a period of five years.\nThe Notice alleged that NGPL violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.807 by failing to maintain certain\nrecords demonstrating compliance with Subpart N (Qualification of Pipeline Personnel) of Part\n192. Specifically, it alleged that NGPL failed to maintain proper records under its operator\nqualification (OQ) program for a particular contract welder. While reviewing OQ records at the\ncompany’s District 309 offices, an OPS inspector requested the qualification records for a\nparticular contract welder who had performed certain “covered tasks” 3 during a 2008\nlauncher/receiver upgrade project. NGPL was unable to produce the records during the\ninspection.\nNGPL did not contest the proposed penalty for this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based\nupon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.807 by\nfailing to properly maintain OQ records for a particular contract welder.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\n3 The covered tasks were Abnormal Operations (001.01.01), Welding Process (024.01.01) and Visual Inspection of\nWelds (024.02.01).\n\n\n\n5\nrelated series of violations.4 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; and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $122,700 for the violations cited above.\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $60,300 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), for failing to follow NGPL’s own manual of written procedures for\nconducting operations and maintenance activities. NGPL paid the proposed penalty, which\nauthorizes PHMSA to make a finding of violation, with prejudice, regarding this item.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $60,300 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a).\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $41,200 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.611, for failing to revise the MAOP of a particular pipeline segment within 24\nmonths of a change in the segment’s class location. NGPL paid the proposed penalty, which\nauthorizes PHMSA to make a finding of violation, with prejudice, regarding this item.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $41,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.611.\nItem 6: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $21,200 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.807, for failing to retain OQ records for a certain contract welder who had\nperformed covered tasks during a 2008 launcher/receiver upgrade project. NGPL paid the\nproposed penalty, which authorizes PHMSA to make a finding of violation, with prejudice,\nregarding this item. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $21,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.807.\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $122,700, which has been paid in\nfull by NGPL.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 for violations of\n49 C.F.R. §§ 192.479(a) and 192.481, respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person\nwho engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required\nto comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the\n4 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat.\n1904, January 3, 2012, increased the maximum civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of\nviolations.\n\n\n\n6\nauthority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the\nfollowing actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its\noperations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.479(a) (Item 1), NGPL must evaluate the\npiping surface to ensure that pipe integrity is suitable for the MAOP of the pipeline at the\nRobstown Compressor Station. The areas must then be cleaned and coated according to\n49 CFR Part 192 and NGPL procedures.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 192.481 (Item 2), NGPL must thoroughly\nevaluate its pipelines at concrete pipe supports and determine if atmospheric corrosion is\npresent. If atmospheric corrosion is present, NGPL must evaluate the piping surface to\nensure that pipe integrity is suitable for the MAOP of the pipeline and clean and coat the\naffected areas according to 49 CFR and NGPL procedures.\n3. Respondent must complete Items 1 and 2 within 90 days of receipt of the Final\nOrder.\n4. It is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the\nsafety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the\ntotal to R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1)\ntotal cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses;\nand 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline\ninfrastructure.\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 ITEM\nWith respect to Item 5, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 192 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning\nitem. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.615(b)(3) (Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to review\nemployee activities to determine if the employees were properly following the\ncompany’s procedures during an emergency.\nIf OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject\n\n\n\n7\nto 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","truncated":false,"body_characters":31998}