{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420161004","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":"2016-06-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.481(a), 192.605(a), 192.605(b)(6), 192.613, 192.705(a), 192.705(b), 192.739(a), 192.805(b), 192.805(c), 192.937(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420161004.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420161004.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420161004","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420161004","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.481(a),  192.605(a),  192.605(b)(6),  192.613,  192.705(a),  192.705(b),  192.739(a),  192.805(b),  192.805(c),  192.937(b). The case was opened on 2016-06-13 and is reported as closed as of 2018-06-11. Proposed civil penalty: $120,500. Assessed civil penalty: $62,900. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420161004_Final Order_05032018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161004/420161004_Final%20Order_05032018.pdf\n\n420161004_Final Order_05032018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161004/420161004_Final%20Order_05032018_text.pdf\n\n420161004_NOPV PCP PCO_06132016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161004/420161004_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06132016.pdf\n\n420161004_NOPV PCP PCO_06132016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161004/420161004_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06132016_text.pdf\n\n420161004_Operator Post-Hearing Written Submittal_01232017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161004/420161004_Operator%20Post-Hearing%20Written%20Submittal_01232017.pdf\n\n420161004_Operator Pre-Hearing Written Submittal_12052016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161004/420161004_Operator%20Pre-Hearing%20Written%20Submittal_12052016.pdf\n\n420161004_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing and Case Documents_07142016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161004/420161004_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing%20and%20Case%20Documents_07142016.pdf\n\n420161004_Final Order_05032018_text.pdf\n\nMay 3, 2018\nMr. Thomas A. Martin\nPresident, Natural Gas Pipeline Group\nKinder Morgan, Inc.\n1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2016-1004\nDear Mr. Martin:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $62,900, and finds that the specified actions to be\ntaken by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc., to comply with\nthe pipeline safety regulations have been completed. The penalty payment terms are set forth in\nthe Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid, this enforcement action will be closed.\nService of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing as provided\nunder 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMs. Jessica Toll, Esq., Assistant General Counsel, Kinder Morgan,\n370 Van Gordon Street, Lakewood, CO 80228\nMs. Catherine D. Little, Esq., Hunton & Williams, Bank of America Plaza,\nSuite 4100, 600 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30308\nMr. Kenneth W. Grubb, Chief Operating Officer, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company,\n1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, TX 77002-5089\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. 4-2016-1004\na subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc., )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn multiple occasions between February 26, 2015 and August 20, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of\nthe facilities and records of certain Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (TGP or Respondent)\npipeline assets in Texas and Louisiana. TGP operates approximately 13,900 miles of pipelines\nwhich run from the Gulf of Mexico coast in Texas and Louisiana through Arkansas, Mississippi,\nAlabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and deliver gas to various states in the\nNortheastern U.S. El Paso Natural Gas, owned by Kinder Morgan, Inc., is the parent company\nof TGP.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated June 13, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49\nC.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nTGP had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed assessing a civil penalty\nof $120,500 for two of the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to\ntake certain measures to correct four of the alleged violations. The warning items required no\nfurther action, but warned Respondent to correct the alleged violations or face possible\nenforcement action.\nTGP responded to the Notice by letter dated July 14, 2016 (Response). TGP contested one of the\nallegations, disagreed with the amount of the proposed civil penalties, and requested a hearing. A\nhearing was subsequently held on December 14, 2016 in Houston, Texas, with an attorney from\nthe Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. At the hearing, Respondent was represented by\ncounsel. After the hearing, Respondent provided additional written materials including a post-\nhearing statement for the record, by letter dated January 23, 2017 (Closing).\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (May 15, 2015) (on file with PHMSA), at 1;\nhttps://www.kindermorgan.com/business/gas pipelines/east/TGP (last accessed Dec. 8, 2017).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-1004\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a), which states:\n§ 192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline\nthat is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion,\nas follows:\nIf the\npipeline is\nlocated:\nThen the frequency of\ninspection is:\nOnshore At least once every 3 calendar\nyears, but with intervals not\nexceeding 39 months\nOffshore At least once each calendar\nyear, but with intervals not\nexceeding 15 months\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a) by failing to inspect each\npipeline or portion of pipeline exposed to the atmosphere for atmospheric corrosion at least once\nevery 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that TGP’s most recent documented atmospheric inspections on pipelines 100-1, 100-2,\n100-3, and 100-4 crossing the Brazos River occurred in January of 2011. Respondent did not\ncontest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I\nfind that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a) by failing to inspect each pipeline or\nportion of pipeline exposed to the atmosphere for atmospheric corrosion at least once every 3\ncalendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), which states:\n§ 192.605(a) Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\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\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 once each calendar year. This manual\nmust be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence.\nAppropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where operations\nand maintenance activities are conducted.\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following, if\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-1004\nPage 3\napplicable, to provide safety during maintenance and operations.\n(1)…\n(6) Maintaining compressor stations, including provisions for isolating\nunits or sections of pipe and for purging before returning to service.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its\nwritten procedures for maintaining the gas detection and alarm equipment at the Cleveland\nCompressor Station to ensure proper functioning. Specifically, the Notice alleged that testing of\nthe high-level gas detection at 30 to 40% lower explosive limit (LEL) observed by the PHMSA\ninspector did not trigger operation of the detection system. Respondent did not contest this\nallegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its written procedures for\nmaintaining the gas detection and alarm equipment at the Cleveland Compressor Station to\nensure proper functioning.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.613, which states:\n§ 192.613 Continuing surveillance.\n(a) Each operator shall have a procedure for continuing surveillance of\nits facilities to determine and take appropriate action concerning changes in\nclass location, failures, leakage history, corrosion, substantial changes in\ncathodic protection requirements, and other unusual operating and\nmaintenance conditions.\n(b) If a segment of pipeline is determined to be in unsatisfactory\ncondition but no immediate hazard exists, the operator shall initiate a\nprogram to recondition or phase out the segment involved, or, if the segment\ncannot be reconditioned or phased out, reduce the maximum allowable\noperating pressure in accordance with §192.619 (a) and (b).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.613 by failing to initiate a program\nto recondition or phase out certain pipeline segments determined to be in unsatisfactory\ncondition. Specifically, the Notice alleged that TGP failed to take timely corrective action to\nrecondition 11 unsatisfactory items identified in Pipeline Bridge Examination Reports dated\nJanuary 25 and 27, 2011. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly,\nbased upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.613\nby failing to initiate a program to recondition or phase out certain pipeline segments determined\nto be in unsatisfactory condition.\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(c), 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(c) Allow individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this subpart to\nperform a covered task if directed and observed by an individual that is\nqualified;\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-1004\nPage 4\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(c) by failing to follow its task\nspecific span of control plan and thereby allowing an individual who was not qualified to\nperform a covered task to perform that task while not directed and observed by an individual that\nwas qualified. Specifically, the Notice alleged that on numerous shifts during the September\n2014 to March 2015 period, TGP had three consoles staffed by controllers, only one of which\nwas qualified exceeding the one-to-one span of control ratio. Respondent did not contest this\nallegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(c) by failing to follow its task specific span of control\nplan and thereby allowing an individual who was not qualified to perform a covered task to\nperform that task while not directed and observed by an individual that was qualified.\nItem 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.937(b), which states:\n§ 192.937 What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to\nmaintain a pipeline's integrity?\n(a) …\n(b) Evaluation. An operator must conduct a periodic evaluation as\nfrequently as needed to assure the integrity of each covered segment. The\nperiodic evaluation must be based on a data integration and risk assessment\nof the entire pipeline as specified in §192.917. For plastic transmission\npipelines, the periodic evaluation is based on the threat analysis specified in\n192.917(d). For all other transmission pipelines, the evaluation must\nconsider the past and present integrity assessment results, data integration\nand risk assessment information (§192.917), and decisions about\nremediation (§192.933) and additional preventive and mitigative actions\n(§192.935). An operator must use the results from this evaluation to identify\nthe threats specific to each covered segment and the risk represented by\nthese threats.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.937(b) by failing to conduct\nperiodic evaluations as frequently as needed to assure the integrity of each covered segment\nbased on present data integration and risk assessments. Specifically, the Notice alleged that TGP\ndid not conduct a periodic evaluation or analysis to determine if there was any need for\nadditional preventive and mitigative measures such as automatic or remote shutoff valves\nfollowing the identification of new high consequence areas (HCAs) along its pipelines that\noccurred after 2007.\nIn its Response and at the hearing, TGP contested the allegation, arguing that it complied with\nthe requirement to conduct a periodic evaluation or analysis to determine if there was any need\nfor additional preventive and mitigative measures. TGP acknowledged that additional HCA\nsegments had been newly identified along its pipelines after 2007, but cited § 192.935(c) in\narguing that an evaluation and analysis of the need for remote controlled valves (RCVs) and\nautomatic shut off valves (ASVs) was a separate “one time” determination and there was no\nrequirement to update that determination.2 TGP cited the existence of two industry studies and\n2 Closing at 3.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-1004\nPage 5\nquestioned whether RCVs and ASVs could ever be effective for any pipeline segment.3 TGP\nalso produced a 2014 chart indicating, among other things, which of its segments did and did not\nhave RCVs and/or ASVs and contended that this chart evidenced an annual review that it\nbelieved satisfied the § 192.937(b) periodic evaluation requirement.4\nAnalysis\nThe gas pipeline integrity management regulations establish a risk management framework in\nwhich pipeline operators are required to conduct initial or baseline risk analyses on pipeline\nsegments that could affect HCAs in the event of a release, and to periodically evaluate the HCA\npipeline segments to maintain their integrity. One element of integrity management is\ndetermining the need for preventative and mitigative measures to ensure that the potential risks\nthat are present can be appropriately mitigated.5\nTGP cited § 192.935(c) in arguing that an evaluation and analysis of the need for RCVs and\nASVs was a separate one time determination and there was no requirement to update that\ndetermination. The issue to be decided is whether this argument can overcome the actual code\nlanguage of § 192.937(b). While § 192.935 and ASME/ANSI B31.8S referenced within are\nrelevant to the type of analysis used for identifying preventive and mitigative measures,\n§ 192.937(b) is controlling on the issue of whether it is a one time or periodic requirement. This\nregulation states, in relevant part, “An operator must conduct a periodic evaluation as frequently\nas needed…”6 Thus, the relevant language expressly makes this a periodic requirement, not a\none-time requirement. In addition, § 192.937(b) references the entirety of § 192.935 with respect\nto preventative and mitigative measures, not just subsection (c) on RCVs and ASVs. Under\nsubsection (a), preventive and mitigative measures also include, “…installing computerized\nmonitoring and leak detection systems, replacing pipe segments with pipe of heavier wall\nthickness, providing additional training to personnel on response procedures, conducting drills\nwith local emergency responders and implementing additional inspection and maintenance\nprograms.”7\nTGP correctly points out that the integrity management rules reflect the premise that each\noperator’s system is different.8 Different pipelines do have different attributes and run through\ndifferent geographic areas. However, this is precisely why operators are obligated to conduct a\nrisk evaluation, including considering the need for preventive and mitigative measures, on a\nsegment-by-segment basis for every HCA segment. The fact that newly designated covered\n3 Id.\n4 Pre-Hearing Submittal, Exhibit 4.\n5 49 C.F.R. Part 192, Subpart O.\n6 49 C.F.R. 192.937(b).\n7 49 C.F.R. § 192.935(a). While the need for RCVs and ASVs is part of the required periodic evaluation of the need\nfor preventative and mitigative measures, the periodic evaluation required by § 192.937(b) is broader than RCVs\nand ASVs and the entire preventive and mitigative evaluation applies to newly designated covered segments.\n8 Closing at 2.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-1004\nPage 6\nsegments will need such evaluations under the integrity management rules, a point not in dispute,\nis simply incompatible with the one-time approach advocated by TGP in this proceeding.\nThus, all covered segments must have an individualized and full evaluation of the need for\npreventative and mitigative measures, including pipe segments that are newly classified as HCA\nsegments. The regulations do not create an exception under which RCVs and ASVs need not be\npart of the evaluation when updating and extending it to newly covered segments. As TGP\ncorrectly noted, however, studies by Kiefner & Associates and Oak Ridge National Laboratory\ndo cast doubt on the effectiveness of RCVs and ASVs in mitigating the consequences of a typical\ngas pipeline rupture.9 It may well be the case that an operator in Respondent’s position is likely\nto determine that, like the original HCA segments, the installation of RCVs and/or ASVs would\nnot provide additional protection in the event of a release on the newly identified HCA segments.\nThis does not, however, negate the code requirement that the operator undertake the periodic\nevaluation for its newly identified and uniquely situated covered pipeline segments. As for the\n2014 chart indicating which segments did and did not have RCVs and/or ASVs, an annual\nreview or update of this chart is not the same thing as conducting an actual risk analysis that\nincluded evaluating the need for preventive and mitigative measures on the newly designated\ncovered segments like the analysis conducted in 2007 for the initial set of covered segments.\nFinally, TGP argued that in alleging this violation, OPS is articulating a “new interpretation” of\n§ 192.937(b) that TGP believes is at odds with the Administrative Procedures Act and fair notice\nprinciples.10 TGP’s argument on this point, however, is unpersuasive. Including consideration\nof RCVs and/or ASVs as part of a broader periodic evaluation of the need for preventative and\nmitigative measures is not an “interpretation” or the creation of a new requirement. It comes\nfrom the direct language of § 192.937(b) of the code which, as noted above, unambiguously\nbrings in § 192.935 on preventative and mitigative measures in its entirety and does so as a\nperiodic requirement, not a one-time requirement.\nI would emphasize that the determination in this case means only that a broader evaluation of the\nneed for any preventative and mitigative measures, including but not limited to RCVs and/or\nASVs, is an integral part of the periodic evaluation requirement of § 192.937(b). It does not\npresuppose the outcome of such evaluation. In particular, this determination is not intended to\ndrive TGP or any other operator to install RCVs and/or ASVs where they would not provide\nadditional protection to a HCA in the event of a release.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.937(b) by failing to conduct periodic evaluations as\nfrequently as needed to assure the integrity of each covered segment following the identification\nof new HCAs along its pipelines that occurred after 2007.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\n9 Closing at 3.\n10 Closing at 4.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-1004\nPage 7\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\nrelated series of violations.11 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 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 $120,500 for the violations cited in Items 1 and 7 above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $37,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.481(a). As discussed above, I found that TGP failed to inspect each pipeline or portion of\npipeline exposed to the atmosphere for atmospheric corrosion at least once every 3 calendar\nyears, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months. In its Response and at the hearing,\nRespondent did not contest the violation, but disagreed with the amount of the proposed civil\npenalty and questioned whether it was supported by the penalty consideration factors in the\nPipeline Safety Act and § 190.225 regulations.\nPHMSA’s method of determining the proposed civil penalty for an alleged violation involves the\nuse of a worksheet that assigns point value from a given range of points for each statutory\npenalty assessment factor. The points assignment is based on factual input from the Violation\nReport. The OPS regional office provided both of these documents to Respondent prior to the\nhearing. PHMSA is bound by the proposed civil penalty amount in the Notice in the sense that\nthe final penalty I assess cannot be higher than the proposed amount, although it can be reduced\nif the operator provides information or arguments showing that a lower gradation of one of the\nfactors such as gravity or culpability is appropriate.\nWith respect to the nature and circumstances of TGP’s violation of § 192.481(a), performing\natmospheric corrosion inspections is a basic code requirement and the non-compliance was\ndiscovered by the OPS inspector. With respect to the gravity of the offense, performing timely\natmospheric corrosion inspections is a key part of safety. If surface corrosion begins to occur on\nthe exposed steel pipe, appropriate remediation and recoating must be completed promptly to\navoid further deterioration and greater threats to pipe integrity. With respect to culpability, there\nwere no circumstances beyond Respondent’s control (such as flooding) that prevented it from\ncomplying with the regulation and action was not taken to achieve compliance until after the\nviolation was discovered by OPS. I further find that the record supports the points assigned for\nprior offenses and good faith. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $37,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.481(a).\n11 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum\nCivil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-1004\nPage 8\nItem 7: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $83,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.805(c). As discussed above, I found that Respondent failed to follow its task specific span\nof control plan and thereby allowing an individual who was not qualified to perform a covered\ntask to perform that task while not directed and observed by an individual that was qualified. In\nits Response and at the hearing, Respondent did not contest the violation, but disagreed with the\namount of the proposed civil penalty and questioned whether it was supported by the penalty\nconsideration factors in the Pipeline Safety Act and § 190.225 regulations.\nWith respect to the nature and circumstances of TGP’s violation of § 192.805(c), ensuring that\nthe performance of covered tasks, particularly pipeline control functions, is properly directed and\nobserved by a qualified individual is a basic code requirement and the non-compliance was\ndiscovered by the OPS inspector. With respect to the gravity of the offense, OPS assigned a\nmid-level point value on the basis that pipeline safety was compromised and a high consequence\narea was involved. In its response and at the hearing, TGP explained that pipeline safety was\nminimally affected because the configuration of its consoles allowed all three controllers to\nmonitor the entire pipeline—meaning that the one qualified controller was monitoring the entire\npipeline.12 Respondent further explained that while its one-to-one control ratio was exceeded,\nthree controllers was more than typical for the system type. Respondent was persuasive that\npipeline safety was minimally affected and I find that a corresponding reduction under the\ngravity factor is warranted. With respect to culpability, there were no circumstances beyond\nRespondent’s control that prevented it from adhering to its span of control plan, the offense was\nongoing for a period of approximately seven months, and action was not taken to achieve\ncompliance until after the violation was discovered by OPS. I further find that the record\nsupports the points assigned for prior offenses and good faith. With respect to other matters as\njustice may require, TGP explained that its span of control procedures exceeded the regulatory\nrequirements. TGP pointed out that the worksheet provided for a penalty reduction in\ncircumstances where the non-compliance was against the requirements of the procedure that\nexceeded the regulation but that this reduction had not been applied.13 Respondent is correct.\nTherefore, in addition to the reduction in gravity, I find that a reduction for other matters as\njustice may require is warranted. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $25,900 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.805(c).\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 $62,900.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.\nThe Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\n12 Closing at 7.\n13 Closing at 8.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-1004\nPage 9\nFailure to pay the $62,900 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 3, 4, and 9 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.481(a), 192.605(a), 192.613, and 192.937(b), respectively. Under\n49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601. The Director indicates that Respondent has taken the following actions\nspecified in the proposed compliance order:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.481(a) (Item 1), Respondent completed\natmospheric corrosion inspections for pipelines 100-1, 100-2, 100-3, and 100-4 in\nNovember 2015 and subsequently completed remediating the identified areas.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 192.605(a) (Item 3), Respondent completed\ninspections of the gas detection and alarm system for the Cleveland Compressor\nStation in September 2015 and ensured proper functioning.\n3. With respect to the violation of § 192.613 (Item 4), Respondent completed a\nprogram to recondition the 11 unsatisfactory items identified on the specified\nsegments.\n4. With respect to the violation of § 192.937(b) (Item 9), Respondent completed an\nevaluation in November 2016 to analyze the need for any additional preventative and\nmitigative measures such as automatic or remote shutoff valves following the\nidentification of new HCAs along its pipelines.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations.\nTherefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 2, 5, 6, and 8, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did\nnot propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered\nto be warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow section\n3.1 of its Management of Change procedures for documenting a pressure\nreduction taken in connection with a pipeline repair;\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-1004\nPage 10\n49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b) (Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to conduct\ntransmission line patrolling within the required interval at the Highway 77\ncrossing;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect the\npressure relief device for Unit No. 6 at the Robstown Station prior to placing it\nback in service in January 2014; and\n49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b) (Item 8) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to ensure through\nevaluation that an employee was qualified to perform a covered task: the annual\nrelief valve inspection on a segment of pipeline 100-3 in September 2014.\nTGP presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to address\nthe cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection,\nRespondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a petition for reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this\nFinal Order by Respondent. Should Respondent elect to submit a petition, it must contain a\nstatement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a\npetition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The terms and conditions\nof this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nMay 3, 2018\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n420161004_NOPV PCP PCO_06132016_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJune 13, 2016\nMr. Gary Buchler\nVice President, Operations and Engineering\nTennessee Gas Pipeline Company\n1001 Louisiana Street\nHouston, TX 77002-5089\nCPF 4-2016-1004\nDear Mr. Buchler:\nBetween February 26, 2015 and August 20, 2015, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601\nof 49 United States Code inspected your Tennessee Gas Pipeline system (TGPL/KM) records and\nfacilities located in Texas and Louisiana.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline\nSafety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable\nviolation(s) are:\n1. §192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring\n(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the\natmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:\nIf the pipeline is located: Then the frequency of inspection is:\nOnshore At least once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals\nnot exceeding 39 months\n\n\n\nTGPL/KM did not inspect portions of pipeline exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric\ncorrosion at least once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.\nDuring the inspection TGPL/KM was asked to present the documentation of their Atmospheric\nInspections. In the specific instance related to pipelines 100-1, 100-2, 100-3 and 100-4 located over\nthe Brazos River, TGP/KM provided PHMSA with two reports dated 1/25/2011 and 1/27/2011 both\ncreated by Acuren. No additional documentation was provided. From this information PHMSA\nconcludes that these pipeline segment’s atmospheric corrosion inspections exceeded the regulatory\ninterval.\n2. §192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies\nEach operator shall include the following in its operating and maintenance plan:\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 procedures\nfor handling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the\noperator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least one each calendar year.\nThis manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence.\nAppropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\nTGPL/KM failed to follow their O&M 155: Management of Change, Revised 2013-09-01, Section 3.1\nduring the repair operations. §192.713(b) requires operating pressure must be at a safe level during\nrepair operations.\nKM's Procedure O&M 155: Management of Change, Revised 2013-09-01, Section 3.1: When\nManagement of Change is Needed, states,\n\"All employees may propose changes. This procedure must be followed for all changes that are\nbeyond or outside normal condition limits or that modify the existing IMP to ensure that\nchanges are adequately reviewed.\nExamples of changes that may need to be reviewed are:\n Reduction of the MOP of a pipeline due to Pipeline Integrity Assessment results...\"\nTGPL/KM performed an In-Line inspection on their pipeline 407A-100 between 407A-103 to 407A-\n103A on 4/11/2012. One of the non-immediate anomalies was repaired on 8/22/2014 with a\nreplacement sleeve. When the PHMSA inspector requested Management of Change request for the\nreduction of the MOP of a pipeline, TGPL/KM was unable to provide it. TGPL/KM also failed to\nprovide documentation on the pipeline operating pressure for the day of the repair.\n2\n\n\n\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 procedures for\nhandling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the\noperator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least one each calendar year. This\nmanual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence. Appropriate\nparts of the manual must be kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities\nare conducted.\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this\nsection must include procedures for the following, if applicable, to provide safety during\nmaintenance and operations.\n(6) Maintaining compressor stations, including provisions for isolating units or sections\nof pipe and for purging before returning to service.\nTGPL/KM failed to follow their procedure and maintain the gas detection and alarm equipment at the\nCleveland Compressor Station to function properly as required by §192.736(c).\nKinder Morgan Procedure O&M 550: Testing Gas and Fire Detection Systems, section 3.1.2 (Low-\nLevel Detection in Compressor Buildings) states,\n“Set detectors at a low-level set point of no more than 25% LEL (1.25% methane by volume).\nLow-level gas detection shall activate and alarm and a callout. The fire and gas detection system\nshall remain energized….”\nKinder Morgan Procedure O&M 550: Testing Gas and Fire Detection Systems, section 3.1.3 (High-\nLevel Detection in Compressor Buildings) states,\n“Set detectors at a high-level set point of 30 to 40% LEL (1.5% to 2% methane by volume).\nHigh-level gas detection shall trigger a compressor building blowdown and activate an alarm\nand a callout. The fire and gas detection system shall remain energized….”\nOn July 30, 2015, the PHMSA inspector witnessed the inspection test of gas detectors, 45-HAT-2 &\n45-HAT-1 at the Cleveland Compressor Station # 25 building “C”. During the test, the gas detectors\nwere activated by applying a known concentration of gas in air to the respective sensor. At 20% LEL,\nthe alarm was activated as per the O&M 550, Section 3.1.2. However, the TGPL/KM employee was\nunable to demonstrate to the PHMSA inspector that the test at high level gas detection of 30 to 40%\nLEL was operational. The test was repeated three times and it was observed that it was not operational.\n3\n\n\n\n4. § 192.613 continuing surveillance.\n(a) Each operator shall have a procedure for continuing surveillance of its facilities to\ndetermine and take appropriate action concerning changes in class location, failures,\nleakage history, corrosion, substantial changes in cathodic protection requirements, and\nother unusual operating and maintenance conditions.\n(b) If a segment of pipeline is determined to be in unsatisfactory condition but no\nimmediate hazard exists, the operator shall initiate a program to recondition or phase out\nthe segment involved, or, if the segment cannot be reconditioned or phased out, reduce\nthe maximum allowable operating pressure in accordance with § 192.619 (a) and (b).\nTGPL/KM did not initiate a program to recondition or phase out the pipeline segment with other\nunusual operating and maintenance conditions found during the Brazos River Span Inspection on the\nTGPL/KM’s pipelines.\nKM O&M 218, Section 3.4: Pipeline in Unsatisfactory Condition states,\n“When a pipeline is determined to be in an unsatisfactory condition by inspection or record review,\nbut no immediate hazard exists, action must be taken to recondition or phase out the segment, or\nreduce the maximum allowable operating pressure in conformance with Compan","truncated":true,"body_characters":56242}