{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420191007","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":"2019-05-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.479, 192.905(b)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420191007.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420191007.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420191007","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420191007","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.479,  192.905(b)(1). The case was opened on 2019-05-13 and is reported as closed as of 2020-01-31. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420191007_ Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing_06182019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420191007/420191007_%20Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing_06182019.pdf\n\n420191007_Final Order_01312020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420191007/420191007_Final%20Order_01312020.pdf\n\n420191007_Final Order_01312020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420191007/420191007_Final%20Order_01312020_text.pdf\n\n420191007_Hearing Withdrawn_08262019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420191007/420191007_Hearing%20Withdrawn_08262019.pdf\n\n420191007_NOPV PCO_05132019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420191007/420191007_NOPV%20PCO_05132019.pdf\n\n420191007_NOPV PCO_05132019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420191007/420191007_NOPV%20PCO_05132019_text.pdf\n\n420191007_Operator Hearing Request Withdrawal_08262019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420191007/420191007_Operator%20Hearing%20Request%20Withdrawal_08262019.pdf\n\n420191007_Final Order_01312020_text.pdf\n\nJanuary 31, 2020\nMr. Steve Kean\nChief Executive Officer\nKinder Morgan, Inc.\n1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000\nHouston, Texas 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2019-1007\nDear Mr. Kean:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case against your subsidiary,\nTennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC (TGP). It withdraws one of the allegations of violation,\nmakes a finding of violation and finds that TGP has completed the actions specified in the Notice\nto comply with the pipeline safety regulations. Therefore, this case is now closed. Service of the\nFinal Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing as provided under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Kenneth Grubb, Vice President – Operations and Engineering, TGP\nMr. Jamie A. Hernandez, Director Engineering – Codes and Compliance, TGP\nMs. Jessica Toll, Assistant General Counsel, TGP, 370 Van Gordon Street, Lakewood,\nColorado 80220\nMs. Katherine Little, Troutman Sanders, LLP, 600 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 3000,\nAtlanta, Georgia 30308\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, ) a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc., )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nCPF No. 4-2019-1007\nFINAL ORDER\nOn multiple occasions between April 2, 2018, and September 21, 2018, 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 Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC (TGP or Respondent), a\nKinder Morgan company,1 in Louisiana and Texas. TGP is an approximately 11,750-mile\ntransmission pipeline system that transports natural gas from Louisiana, the Gulf of Mexico and\nsouth Texas to the northeast section of the United States, including New York City and Boston.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated May 13, 2019, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that TGP had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.905 and 192.479 and proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nOn June 18, 2019 TGP, though outside counsel, responded to the Notice by filing a Request for\nHearing, Written Response, and Preliminary Statement of Issues (Response). TGP contested all\nof the allegations and requested a hearing. By letter dated August 26, 2019 (Withdrawal),\nRespondent withdrew its request for a hearing and thereby authorized the entry of this Final\nOrder without further notice.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\n1 TGP’s website, available at https://pipeportal kindermorgan.com/PortalUI/DefaultKM.aspx?TSP=TGPD (last\naccessed January 6, 2020).\n2 Id.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-1007\nPage 2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(b)(1), which states:\n§ 192.905 How does an operator identify a high consequence area?\n(a) ….\n(b)(1) Identified sites. An operator must identify an identified site, for\npurposes of this subpart, from information the operator has obtained from\nroutine operation and maintenance activities and from public officials with\nsafety or emergency response or planning responsibilities who indicate to\nthe operator that they know of locations that meet the identified site criteria.\nThese public officials could include officials on a local emergency planning\ncommission or relevant Native American tribal officials.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(b)(1) by failing to properly\nidentify an identified site as required by the regulation. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nduring the field inspection, PHMSA inspectors identified a playground located at Corina Peña\nElementary School adjacent to the Sullivan City-Texas Garden pipeline (407D-500 to 407D-501)\nright-of-way and within its potential impact radius (PIR) that was not listed as an identified site.\nIn its Response, TGP contested the allegation of violation and stated that the playground is not\nan identified site, as defined by the regulation, but rather is only a “holding pond” that is\ninfrequently used by the elementary school.3 Further, TGP proffered that it had “expressly\ndiscussed the school’s use of the vacant drainage area and school officials … confirmed that the\narea is not used as an outdoor area of assembly such that it would meet PHMSA’s definition of\nan identified site ….”4 Finally, TGP argued that PHMSA must proffer sufficient evidence of use\nby 20 or more persons on at least 50 days in any 12-month period to make a determination that\nan area is an identified site.\n5\nAfter reviewing the Response, the Director had further communications with the school and\nconfirmed that the playground area did not meet the requirements of an identified site at the time\nof the inspection and requested that this Item be withdrawn.6\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that\nRespondent did not violate 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(b)(1) because the playground area did not meet\nthe requirements of an identified site at the time of the inspection. I hereby order that Item 1 be\nwithdrawn.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479, which states:\n3 Response, at 2.\n4 Id.\n5 See id. (“PHMSA requires that there be evidence of use and the rule outlines specific criteria for that use ‘[a]t the\nsite there needs to be evidence that the site is used by 20 or more persons on at least 50 days in any 12-month period.’”)\n(quoting Final Rule, 67 Fed. Reg. 50824, 50830 (Aug. 6, 2002)).\n6 Region Recommendation, at 1-2.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-1007\nPage 3\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, expect pipelines under paragraph\n(c) of this section.\n(b) Coating material must be suitable for the prevention of atmospheric\ncorrosion.\n(c) Except portions of pipelines in offshore splash zones or soil-to-air\ninterfaces, the operator need not protect from atmospheric corrosion any\npipeline for which the operator demonstrates by test, investigation, or\nexperience appropriate to the environment of the pipeline that corrosion\nwill—\n(1) Only be light surface oxide; or\n(2) Not affect the safe operation of the pipeline before the next\nscheduled inspection.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479 by failing to clean and coat\nportions of its pipeline exposed to the atmosphere at the Victoria compressor station.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that PHMSA inspectors observed several portions of the\ncompressor suction piping with deteriorating coating conditions where the coating was cracking,\npeeling, and disbonding. Further, the Notice alleged that although TGP provided evidence that\nthe compression station suction piping had been cleaned and recoating shortly after the\ninspection, TGP’s procedure titled “CorrPD-006” did not require recoating when the coating was\ncracked, peeled, or disbonded, and therefore did not have clear and definitive thresholds to\ndetermine grading of pipeline coating condition as required by the regulation.\nIn its Response TGP contested the allegation of violation on the grounds that its atmospheric\ncorrosion procedures are “more stringent than [the] minimum requirements in 49 C.F.R.\n192.479(a) and have proven to be effective in managing atmospheric corrosion.”7 TGP further\nchallenged the allegation of violation by arguing that the regulation cited does not always require\nrecoating where coating is cracked, peeled, or disbonded, and PHMSA has never notified the\npublic that it interprets the regulation in that manner.8\nSubsequent to filing its Response, TGP and PHMSA engaged in settlement discussions in an\neffort to resolve the case without the necessity of a hearing. As a result of those discussions,\nTGP filed a Withdrawal and rescinded its appeal of Item 2 and request for a hearing.9\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.479 by failing to clean and coat portions of its pipeline exposed to the atmosphere at the\nVictoria compressor station.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\n7 Response, at 4.\n8 Id., at 4-5.\n9 Withdrawal, at 1-2.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-1007\nPage 4\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.901(b)(1) and 192.479 respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a),\neach person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility\nis required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The\nDirector indicates that Respondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed\ncompliance order:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.901(b)(1) (Item 1), this Item and proposed\ncompliance order items are withdrawn.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 192.479 (Item 2), Respondent has submitted\namended procedures for atmospheric corrosion, which have been reviewed and\napproved by the Director.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved. Therefore, the compliance terms\nproposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nJanuary 31, 2020\n___________________________________ _________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":11692}