{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420121020","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":"2012-11-05","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.469.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420121020.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420121020.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420121020","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420121020","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.469. The case was opened on 2012-11-05 and is reported as closed as of 2013-12-26. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420121020_Final Order_12262013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121020/420121020_Final%20Order_12262013.pdf\n\n420121020_Final Order_12262013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121020/420121020_Final%20Order_12262013_text.pdf\n\n420121020_NOPV PCO_11022012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121020/420121020_NOPV%20PCO_11022012.pdf\n\n420121020_NOPV PCO_11022012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121020/420121020_NOPV%20PCO_11022012_text.pdf\n\n420121020_NOPV PCO_11052012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121020/420121020_NOPV%20PCO_11052012.pdf\n\n420121020_NOPV PCO_11052012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121020/420121020_NOPV%20PCO_11052012_text.pdf\n\n420121020_Operator_Request_for_Hearing_and_Response_to_NOPV_PCO_12072012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420121020/420121020_Operator_Request_for_Hearing_and_Response_to_NOPV_PCO_12072012.pdf\n\n420121020_Final Order_12262013_text.pdf\n\nDECEMBER 26, 2013\nMr. Steven J. Kean\nPresident and COO\nKinder Morgan, Inc.\n1001 Louisiana St, Suite 1000\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2012-1020\nDear Mr. Kean:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation and finds that Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company has completed the actions specified in\nthe proposed compliance order to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. There is no\nfurther action required to be taken with regard to this case. Service of the Final Order by\ncertified mail is effective as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Rodrick Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\nMs. Jessica Toll, Assistant General Counsel, Kinder Morgan, Inc.\n370 Van Gordon St, Lakewood, Colorado 80228\nMs. Susie Richmond, Manager DOT Compliance, Kinetica Partners LLC\n224 Aviation Rd, Houma, LA 70360\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, ) CPF No. 4-2012-1020\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn June 18-22, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted a pipeline safety inspection of the offshore gas pipeline system operated by Tennessee\nGas Pipeline Company (TGP or Respondent) in Louisiana.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued a Notice of\nProbable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) to Respondent on November 5,\n2012. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. §§ 190.207 and 190.217, the Notice alleged that Respondent\ncommitted a violation of the natural gas pipeline safety regulations and proposed that corrective\naction be taken. The Notice did not propose a civil penalty.\nOn December 7, 2012, TGP responded to the Notice by contesting the alleged violation and\nrequesting a hearing. Respondent submitted additional written material on February 19, 2013.\nIn accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, a hearing was held on February 28, 2013, in Houston,\nTexas, before the Presiding Official from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA. Respondent\nprovided a post-hearing written submittal on April 4, 2013.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.469, which states:\n1 TGP, a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., operates approximately 13,500 miles of pipeline\ntransporting natural gas from Louisiana and Texas to states in the Northeast, as reported for calendar year 2012\npursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 191.17. The facilities inspected were sold to Kinetica Partners LLC during the course of this\nproceeding.\n\n\n\n2\n§ 192.469 External corrosion control: Test stations.\nEach pipeline under cathodic protection required by this subpart must\nhave sufficient test stations or other contact points for electrical\nmeasurement to determine the adequacy of cathodic protection.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 192.469 by failing to evaluate test stations on its\noffshore gas pipeline system to ensure they were sufficient to determine the adequacy of cathodic\nprotection. Specifically, in 2004, two test stations were removed when a third-party production\ncompany decommissioned and removed offshore platforms where the test stations were located.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent did not replace the test stations and did not perform an\nevaluation of the appropriate locations for testing to determine the adequacy of cathodic\nprotection.\nAt the hearing and in its written submissions, TGP explained that it was not the operator of the\nsystem when the platforms and test stations were removed. The pipelines were designed and\noperated by another company until 2008, when TGP began operating the lines. Respondent\ncontended that during its acquisition of the pipelines in 2007 and 2008, the company analyzed\ncathodic protection data and concluded there were sufficient test stations. To support this\nassertion, Respondent submitted an affidavit dated April 3, 2013, from the individual who\nperformed the analysis.\n2 The individual stated that as Principal Corrosion Specialist for TGP, he\nexamined all of the corrosion data for the system in 2007 and concluded there were sufficient test\nstations and adequate cathodic protection.\nRespondent also presented a documented engineering analysis of the offshore system that it\nprepared in response to the Notice. Respondent explained that the system has 132 contact points\nacross approximately 1300 miles of offshore pipeline. Due to the electrically continuous nature\nof the system, Respondent found the contact points were sufficiently spaced to demonstrate\nadequate cathodic protection. Respondent also explained that offshore there is reliable galvanic\ncathodic protection, there is no soil resistivity, no coating degradation due to soil stress, no\nincreases in ground bed circuit resistance, no cyclical variations due to weather changes, and less\nconcern for electrical isolation, shorted casings, and stray currents. Respondent produced graphs\nand diagrams to support these assertions.\nTGP also argued that § 192.469 does not require replacement of the two test stations that were\nremoved because the regulation only requires test stations at accessible locations. When the two\nplatforms were removed in 2004, the locations were no longer accessible and therefore the\ncompany was not required to replace the stations. To support this argument, Respondent cited\nthe preamble to the 1976 final rule adopting § 192.469, which stated that “tests from accessible\nlocations are ‘sufficient’ to determine the adequacy of cathodic protection in an offshore\nenvironment.”3 Respondent also cited a consensus standard that states test leads for offshore\npipelines are usually limited to platforms and the pipeline entrance to the shore.4\n2 TGP Post Hearing Submittal (Apr. 4, 2013), Attachment 2.\n3 Offshore Pipeline Facilities, 41 Fed. Reg. 34598, 34603 (Aug. 16, 1976).\n4 ASME B31.8 (2007), section A862.15. The B31.8 standard is not incorporated by reference in § 192.469, but is\nincorporated by reference in Part 192 for other purposes, see § 192.7.\n\n\n\n3\nFinally, Respondent argued that a similar regulation for hazardous liquid pipelines, § 195.567(a),\ndoes not require test stations for buried or submerged offshore liquid pipelines. In the preamble\nfor that rule, PHMSA stated “we believe readings taken by operators at offshore platforms or on\nshore are used satisfactorily to determine the adequacy of protection over the entire pipeline.\nMoreover, this test method is acceptable for offshore gas pipelines under paragraph A862.15 of\nthe ASME B31.8 Code.”5\nAt the hearing, OPS maintained that even though the platforms were removed before Respondent\nbegan operating the pipelines, Respondent was required to have documentation demonstrating\ncompliance with § 192.469. OPS stated that it presumed there was an engineering basis for the\noriginal location of the two test stations that were removed. For example, one of the test stations\nhad been located at the end of a lateral, so its removal left the entire lateral without a test station.\nSince each station was presumed to be located purposefully, OPS argued that the stations could\nnot simply be removed without analyzing whether a sufficient number of test stations remained\nto verify adequate cathodic protection.\nAnalysis and Findings\nSection 192.469 requires operators to ensure their cathodic protection systems have a\n“sufficient” number of test stations so that the operator can determine the adequacy of cathodic\nprotection. This is a performance-based requirement. The regulation does not establish a\nspecific number of test stations, but rather establishes a minimum level of safety that must be\nachieved.\nIt is inherent to this performance-based requirement that an operator use acceptable means for\nanalyzing data to determine whether its test stations are sufficient. Without performing such an\nanalysis, an operator cannot be certain that test stations are sufficient for ensuring adequate\ncathodic protection. It is also inherent that the operator document its decision-making process so\nthat OPS can verify the operator’s conclusions during a compliance inspection.6\nAs the operator of the system in question, Respondent was required to have documentation\ndemonstrating that the number and location of test stations and other relevant factors had been\nanalyzed and found to be sufficient for determining the adequacy of cathodic protection.\nThe affidavit submitted by Respondent is not an acceptable substitute for the documentation\nrequired, because it was not prepared at the time of the analysis and did not include the data and\nanalysis behind the operator’s conclusion that the test stations were sufficient.\nThe recent engineering analysis prepared by Respondent is the type of information PHMSA\nexpects to be available during a compliance inspection. As explained below, the documentation\ndemonstrates there are sufficient test stations to determine the adequacy of the protection.\n5 Controlling Corrosion on Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipelines, 66 Fed. Reg. 66994, 66997\n(Dec. 27, 2001).\n6 See Nustar Logistics, L.P., CPF No. 4-2005-5048, p.3-4, 2009 WL 1211363 (Mar. 11, 2009) (also available at\nhttp://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement) (finding a violation of § 195.406(b) where the operator failed to\nproduce a documented analysis demonstrating the system had “adequate” pressure controls and equipment).\n\n\n\n4\nAlthough this renders the proposed compliance order unnecessary, it does not rebut the\nallegation of violation because it was not prepared until after the OPS inspection.\nFinally, Respondent successfully argued that § 192.469 requires test stations at accessible\nlocations, but this does not negate the requirement to have documentation demonstrating\ncompliance.\nAccordingly, I find Respondent violated § 192.469 by failing to have a documented analysis to\ndemonstrate there were sufficient test stations for determining the adequacy of cathodic\nprotection on its offshore gas pipeline system.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who owns or operates a gas pipeline facility is required\nto comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601, including those\nestablished in 49 C.F.R. Part 192. PHMSA may order a person to comply with those standards\nas set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217.\nThe Director has indicated that Respondent completed the actions proposed in the Notice to\nachieve compliance. Those actions include performing a documented evaluation of the cathodic\nprotection system and pipeline design. The evaluation demonstrated there are sufficient test\nstations for electrical measurement to determine the adequacy of the protection. Since\nRespondent has achieved compliance with respect to this issue, there is no need to issue an order\ndirecting compliance. No further action is required to be taken by Respondent with regard to this\ncase.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243 (formerly § 190.215), Respondent may submit a petition for\nreconsideration of this Final Order to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA,\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, no later than 20\ndays after receipt of the Final Order by the Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a\nbrief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The terms\nof the order remain in effect upon the filing of a petition, unless the Associate Administrator,\nupon request, grants a stay.\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":13732}