{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420191010","title":"EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2019-10-01","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 191.5(a), 192.465(a), 192.605(a), 192.619(a)(3), 192.739(a)(3).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420191010.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420191010.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420191010","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420191010","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 191.5(a),  192.465(a),  192.605(a),  192.619(a)(3),  192.739(a)(3). The case was opened on 2019-10-01 and is reported as closed as of 2020-10-01. Proposed civil penalty: $45,900. Assessed civil penalty: $45,900. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420191010_Closure Letter_10012020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420191010/420191010_Closure%20Letter_10012020.pdf\n\n420191010_Closure Letter_10012020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420191010/420191010_Closure%20Letter_10012020_text.pdf\n\n420191010_Final Order_07222020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420191010/420191010_Final%20Order_07222020.pdf\n\n420191010_Final Order_07222020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420191010/420191010_Final%20Order_07222020_text.pdf\n\n420191010_NOPV PCP PCO_10012019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420191010/420191010_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_10012019.pdf\n\n420191010_NOPV PCP PCO_10012019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420191010/420191010_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_10012019_text.pdf\n\n420191010_Operator Response to Notice_12192019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420191010/420191010_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_12192019.pdf\n\n420191010_Closure Letter_10012020_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nOctober 1, 2020\nMr. Joseph E. McLaughlin\nVice President of Operations\nKinder Morgan, Inc\n1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000\nHouston, TX 77002\nCPF 4-2019-1010\nDear Mr. McLaughlin:\nOn July 22, 2020, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued\nto El Paso Natural Gas Company, LLC, a Final Order in the above-referenced case that included\na Compliance Order. On August 21, 2020, EPNG submitted its actions taken to complete the\nactions under the order.\nPHMSA has reviewed the records of evaluation for the applicability of Pipeline Safety regulations\nwith regards to MAOP reconfirmation submitted in response to the Order and has determined the\nevaluation to be acceptable.\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,\nMary. L McDaniel, P.E\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n420191010_Final Order_07222020_text.pdf\n\nJuly 22, 2020\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: joe mclaughlin@kindermorgan.com\nMr. Joseph E. McLaughlin\nVice President of Operations\nKinder Morgan, Inc.\n1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000\nHouston, Texas 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2019-1010\nDear Mr. McLaughlin:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary, El\nPaso Natural Gas Company, LLC. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of\n$45,900. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of the full penalty amount, by wire transfer,\ndated November 4, 2019. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as\ndetermined by the Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by electronic mail is effective\nupon the date of transmission as provided under 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: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Steven Kean, Chief Executive Officer, Kinder Morgan, steve_kean@kindermorgan.com\nMs. Jessica Toll, Assistant General Counsel, Kinder Morgan, jessica_toll@kindermorgan.com\nMr. Jamie Hernandez, Director - Engineering, Codes and Compliance, Kinder Morgan,\njamie_hernandez@kindermorgan.com\n\n\n\nMs. Catherine Little, Counsel, Troutman Sanders, LLP, catherine.little@troutman.com\nMs. Annie Cook, Counsel, Troutman Sanders, LLP, annie.cook@troutman.com\nCONFIRMATION OF 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 )\n)\n)\nEl Paso Natural Gas Company, LLC, a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc., )\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\n) CPF No. 4-2019-1010\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom January 16, 2018, through July 19, 2019, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS) and Arizona Corporation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code,\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of El Paso Natural\nGas Company, LLC’s (EPNG or Respondent) West North pipeline system in Texas, Oklahoma,\nNew Mexico, and Arizona. EPNG is a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc.1 The EPNG system is\nan approximately 10,140-mile pipeline system that transports natural gas from the San Juan,\nPermian, and Anadarko basins to California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas,\nand northern Mexico.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated October 1, 2019, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included warnings pursuant to\n49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nEPNG had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.619(a)(3) and 192.465(a), and proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $45,900 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to\ntake certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning items required no further\naction, but warned the operator to correct the probable violations or face possible future\nenforcement action.\nEPNG requested and received two extensions of time to respond to the Notice. EPNG responded\nto the Notice by letter dated December 19, 2019 (Response). The company did not contest the\nallegation of § 192.619(a)(3), but provided additional information in response to the Notice and\nrequested that the proposed compliance order be modified. The company did not contest the\n1 Kinder Morgan, Inc. website, available at\nhttps://www.kindermorgan.com/pages/business/gas pipelines/west/EPNG MP/default.aspx (last accessed July 7, 2020).\n2 Id.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-1010\nPage 2\nallegation of § 192.465(a) and paid the proposed civil penalty. Respondent did not request a\nhearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\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. § 192.619(a)(3), which states:\n§ 192.619 Maximum allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic\npipelines.\n(a) No person may operate a segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a\npressure that exceeds a maximum allowable operating pressure determined\nunder paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, or the lowest of the following:\n(1) ….\n(3) The highest actual operating pressure to which the segment was\nsubjected during the 5 years preceding the applicable date in the second\ncolumn. This pressure restriction applies unless the segment was tested\naccording to the requirements in paragraph (a)(2) of this section after the\napplicable date in the third column or the segment was uprated according to\nthe requirements in subpart K of this part:\nPipeline segment Pressure date Test date\n— Onshore gathering line that\nfirst became subject to this part\n(other than §192.612) after April\n13, 2006\nMarch 15, 2006, or date\nline becomes subject to\nthis part, whichever is\nlater\n5 years preceding\napplicable date in\nsecond column.\n— Onshore transmission line that\nwas a gathering line not subject to\nthis part before March 15, 2006\nOffshore gathering lines July 1, 1976 July 1, 1971.\nAll other pipelines July 1, 1970 July 1, 1965.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619(a)(3) by failing to establish a\nmaximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) for its MP 64+ 2964 to MP 138+ 2128 segment\n(the Segment). Specifically, the Notice alleged that EPNG did not have records to support its\nMAOP determination. The Notice alleged that EPNG’s records stated that the MAOP of the\nSegment was established using criteria in Section 3.3. of EPNG’s Operation and Maintenance\nProcedures 201, which adopted the requirements of § 192.619(a)(3). Yet, the Notice alleged\nEPNG could not provide records showing the highest actual operating pressure the Segment was\nsubjected to during the five years preceding July 1, 1970, to support its MAOP determination in\naccordance with § 192.619(a)(3).3\n3 The Notice mistakenly alleges that EPNG could not provide records showing the highest actual operating pressure\nthat the Segment was subjected to during the past five years, instead of the five years preceding the applicable date\nof July 1, 1970.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-1010\nPage 3\nIn its Response, EPNG contended that it believed it had documents demonstrating compliance\nwith § 192.619(a)(3) at the time of the inspection, but stated that it was not contesting the alleged\nviolation. EPNG did request that the compliance order be modified, which is discussed below.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.619(a)(3) by failing to have documentation to support its MAOP determination\nfor the Segment.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a), which states:\n§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each pipeline that is under cathodic protection must be tested at least\none each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to\ndetermine whether the cathodic protection meets the requirements of\n§192.463. However, if tests at those intervals are impractical for separately\nprotected short sections of mains or transmission lines, not in excess of 100\nfeet (30 meters), or separately protected service lines, these pipelines may\nbe surveyed on a sampling basis. At least 10 percent of these protected\nstructures, distributed over the entire system must be surveyed each\ncalendar year, with a different 10 percent checked each subsequent year, so\nthat the entire system is tested in each 10-year period.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a) by failing to test each\npipeline that is under cathodic protection at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, to determine whether the cathodic protection meets the requirements of\n§ 192.463 for four of its pipeline systems.4 Specifically, the Notice alleged that EPNG’s records\nfor its annual pipe-to-soil surveys for calendar years 2016 and 2017, for pipeline systems 1200,\n1201, 1204, and 1208, showed that EPNG exceeded the 15-month testing interval by a period of\none to five months. The Notice alleged further, that for pipeline system 1209, this is a repeat\nviolation from a Final Order issued to Respondent on December 29, 2016 (CPF No. 4-2016-\n1005, Item 4).\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a) by failing to test each\npipeline that is under cathodic protection at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not\n4 §192.463 External corrosion control: Cathodic protection.\n(a) Each cathodic protection system required by this subpart must provide a level of cathodic protection that\ncomplies with one or more of the applicable criteria contained in appendix D of this part. If none of these criteria is\napplicable, the cathodic protection system must provide a level of cathodic protection at least equal to that provided\nby compliance with one or more of these criteria.\n(b) If amphoteric metals are included in a buried or submerged pipeline containing a metal of different anodic\npotential—\n(1) The amphoteric metals must be electrically isolated from the remainder of the pipeline and cathodically\nprotected; or\n(2) The entire buried or submerged pipeline must be cathodically protected at a cathodic potential that meets\nthe requirements of appendix D of this part for amphoteric metals.\n(c) The amount of cathodic protection must be controlled so as not to damage the protective coating or the\npipe.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-1010\nPage 4\nexceeding 15 months, to determine whether the cathodic protection meets the requirements of\n§ 192.463 for four of its pipeline systems.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.5 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; any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil\npenalty of $45,900 for the violation of § 192.465(a) cited above.\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $45,900 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.465(a), for failing to test each pipeline that is under cathodic protection at least once each\ncalendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine whether the cathodic\nprotection meets the requirements of § 192.463 for four of its pipeline systems. EPNG neither\ncontested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in or\nelimination of the proposed penalty.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $45,900 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a). The full civil\npenalty amount was paid by wire transfer on November 4, 2019.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.619(a)(3). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of\ngas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under chapter 601.\nWith regard to the violation of § 192.619(a)(3) (Item 1), the Notice proposed to require that\nRespondent submit records showing the highest operating pressure to which the pipeline segment\nwas operated during the five years preceding July 1, 1970. EPNG requested that the compliance\nterms be modified to permit Respondent to evaluate the applicability of recently issued pipeline\nsafety regulations to ensure compliance with MAOP and recordkeeping standards. The new\n5 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-1010\nPage 5\nregulations, titled “Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines: MAOP\nReconfirmation, Expansion of Assessment Requirements, and Other Related Amendments,”\nwere promulgated by PHMSA on October 1, 2019 (84 FR 52180). In her recommendation for\nfinal action submitted pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Regional Director agreed that it would be\nappropriate to modify the proposed compliance terms in order to allow EPNG to come into\ncompliance with newly promulgated regulations concerning MAOP and recordkeeping.\nTherefore, the Compliance Order is modified as set forth below.\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is\nordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations\napplicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.619(a)(3) (Item 1), Respondent must\nevaluate the applicability of Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines:\nMAOP Reconfirmation, Expansion of Assessment Requirements, and Other Related\nAmendments, (84 FR 52180, Oct. 1, 2019) to the El Paso West North pipeline\nsegment, MP 64 + 2964 and MP 138 + 2128.\n2. EPNG must specifically evaluate the applicability of § 192.127, Records: Pipe\nDesign (records verification); § 192.624, Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure\nReconfirmation: Onshore Steel Transmission Pipelines (MAOP confirmation);\n§ 192.632, Engineering Critical Assessment for Maximum Allowable Operating\nPressure Reconfirmation: Onshore Steel Transmission Pipelines; and compliance\ntimeframes in the October 1, 2019 rulemaking (effective July 1, 2020).\n3. EPNG must provide its evaluation to the Director, Southwest Region for review\nwithin 30 days of the issuance of the Final Order.\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.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the\nDirector. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated\nwith preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated\nwith replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\neach day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-1010\nPage 6\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 2, 4, and 5, the Notice alleged probable violations of Parts 191 and 192,\nbut identified them as warning items pursuant to § 190.205. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 191.5(a) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to provide\nimmediate notice at the earliest practical moment following discovery, but no\nlater than one hour after confirmed discovery, of two incidents as defined in\n§ 191.3.\n49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a)(3) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to correctly set\nthe relief point on the relief device at Window Rock station, to control or relieve\nat the correct pressure, as required by § 192.201(a).\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its\nprocedures to accurately record all required data on its form for annual on-site\nrectifier inspection in 12 instances.\nPursuant to § 190.205, Respondent may submit a response to a warning, but is not required to.\nIn addition, according to that regulation, an adjudication is not conducted for warnings to\ndetermine if a violation occurred. With regard to Item 2, EPNG requested the withdrawal of one\nof the referenced incidents because the regulatory requirements for § 191.5 were not in effect\nuntil after the incident occurred. Regarding Item 5, EPNG averred that it followed its procedures\nand that its procedures did not require the use or completion of the Impressed Current Rectifier\nand Anode Inspection Forms. Respondent’s position on Items 2 and 5 is noted for the record,\nbut as indicated above, under § 190.205, PHMSA does not adjudicate warning items to\ndetermine whether a probable violation occurred. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items\nin a subsequent inspection, Respondent 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. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and\nmeet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The terms of the order, including corrective\naction, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nJuly 22, 2020\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n420191010_NOPV PCP PCO_10012019_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nOctober 1, 2019\nGary Buchler\nVice President Engineering/Operations\nEl Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.\n1001 Louisiana Street\nHouston, Texas 77002 - 5089\nCPF 4-2019-1010\nDear Mr. Buchler:\nFrom January 16, 2018 through July 19, 2019, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) and Arizona\nCorporation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected your El\nPaso West North pipeline system in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected\nand the probable violations are:\n\n\n\n1. §192.619 Maximum allowable operating pressure - Steel or plastic pipelines.\n(a) No person may operate a segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a pressure that\nexceeds a maximum allowable operating pressure determined under paragraph (c)\nor (d) of this section, or the lowest of the following:\n(3) The highest actual operating pressure to which the segment was subjected\nduring the 5 years preceding the applicable date in the second column. This\npressure restriction applies unless the segment was tested according to the\nrequirements in paragraph (a)(2) of this section after the applicable date in the\nthird column or the segment was uprated according to the requirements in subpart\nK of this part:\nEl Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. (EPNG) failed to establish a maximum allowable operating\npressure (MAOP) for one segment of the El Paso West North pipeline system in accordance with\n§ 192.619. When deciding the MAOP to operate the MP 64 + 2964 to MP 138 + 2128 segment,\nEPNG chose to use the highest actual operating pressure the segment had been subjected to during\nthe last 5 years, pursuant to § 192.619(a)(3). EPNG did, however, not have the documentation to\nsupport its determination.\nEPNG’s records show that the MAOP of the segment between MP 64 + 2964 and MP 138 + 2128\nwas established using the criteria in section 3.3 of EPNG’s Operation and Maintenance 201\nprocedures, which are the same as those in § 192.619(a)(3). EPNG, however, could not provide\nrecords showing the highest actual operating pressure that the segment was subjected to during the\npast 5 years.\n2. § 191.5 Immediate notice of certain incidents.\n(a) At the earliest practicable moment following discovery, but no later than one hour\nafter confirmed discovery, each operator must give notice in accordance with\nparagraph (b) of this section of each incident as defined in § 191.3.\nEPNG failed to provide immediate notice at the earliest practical moment following discovery\n(within one hour) of each of the following incidents as defined in §191.3:\nThe first incident, involving a fire and release of natural gas, occurred at 8:00 am on January 10,\n2017, on the L1600 Casa Grande to Wenden pipeline in Arizona. According to EPNG’s PHMSA\nForm F7100.2 (Report No. 20170017), EPNG discovered the incident at 10:00am on January 11,\n2017, and reported it to the National Response Center (NRC) at 11:17am. The notification was\nmade one hour and seventeen minutes following the confirmation of the need to report the incident.\nFor the second incident, on July 9, 2017, at 4:50pm, EPNG notified the NRC of a 3:24pm incident\ninvolving the Florida B Staion in New Mexico. The incident resulted in the release of 500 MCF\n2\n\n\n\nof natural gas. The NRC notification was made one hour and twenty-six minutes following\ndiscovery.\n3. §192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each pipeline that is under cathodic protection must be tested at least once each\ncalendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine whether the\ncathodic protection meets the requirements of §192.463. However, if tests at those\nintervals are impractical for separately protected short sections of mains or\ntransmission lines, not in excess of 100 feet (30 meters), or separately protected service\nlines, these pipelines may be surveyed on a sampling basis. At least 10% of these\nprotected structures, distributed over the entire system must be surveyed each\ncalendar year, with a different 10% checked each subsequent year, so that the entire\nsystem is tested in each 10-year period.\nEPNG failed to test each pipeline that is under cathodic protection at least once each calendar year,\nbut with intervals not exceeding 15 months to determine whether the cathodic protection met the\nrequirements of § 192.463 for four of its pipeline systems.\nEPNG provided records for its annual pipe to soil surveys for calendar years 2016 and 2017 for\npipeline systems 1200, 1201, 1204, and 1208. These records showed that EPNG failed to perform\nthe annual surveys on those lines within the required 15 month interval. The survey records\nshowed that the annual survey was carried out between March 8-14, 2016, while the subsequent\nsurvey did not occur until July 20-23, 2017, August 17, 2017, and November 29, 2017. In each\ninstance, the 15 month interval was exceeding by a period of one to five months.\nFor line 1208, this is a repeat violation from CPF 4-2016-1005 Item 4.\n4. §192.739 - Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and testing.\n(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs), and pressure\nregulating station and its equipment must be subjected at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year, to inspections and tests to determine\nthat it is-\n(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, set to control or relieve at\nthe correct pressure consistent with the pressure limits of §192.201(a);\nEPNG failed to correctly set the relief point on the relief device in order to control or relieve at the\ncorrect pressure as required by § 192.201(a) at the Window Rock station. PHMSA reviewed\nEPNG’s May 12, 2016, record that showed that the relief setting was set at 1000 psi, which is\nhigher than the pressure limits set forth in 49 CFR §192.201(a). EPNG corrected the setting on\nJanuary 19, 2017, to the correct set pressure of 900 psi.\n3\n\n\n\n5. §192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(3) 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.\nEPNG failed to follow its procedures to accurately record all required data on its annual on-site\nrectifier inspection in twelve instances.\nEPNG’s Operations and Maintenance procedures 903 (External Corrosion Control for Buried or\nSubmerged Pipelines) and CorrBP-004 (Rectifier and Anode Bed Guide) require the completion\nof all the required information on its form to document its annual on-site rectifier inspections for\ntwelve inspections. Records reviewed from various inspections carried out in 2017 were missing\nrequired information, including the nearest pipe to soil readings, AC volts/amps, anode readings,\nand some other required data.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for a related\nseries of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and before July 31,\n2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day, with a maximum\npenalty not to exceed $2,132,679. For violation occurring on or after November 2, 2015 and before\nNovember 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per violation per day, with a\nmaximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015,\nthe maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty\nnot to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed\nthe circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and\nhas recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $45,900 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n3 $45,900\nWarning Items\nWith respect to items 2 , 4, and 5, we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents\ninvolved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty\nassessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these items. Failure to\ndo so may result in additional enforcement action.\n4\n\n\n\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item 1 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.\nPlease refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nCompliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All\nmaterial you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you\nbelieve that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5\nU.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the\ndocument with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an\nexplanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under\n5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request a\nhearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice,\nthis constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further\nnotice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this Notice, we propose that you\nsubmit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from receipt of this Notice. This period\nmay be extended by written request for good cause.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2019-1010 and, for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nMary L. McDaniel, P.E.\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 El Paso Natural Gas, L.L.C. (EPNG) a Compliance\nOrder incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of EPNG with\nthe pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 4. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to MAOP determination EPNG\nshall submit records showing the highest operating pressure to which the MP 64 +\n2964 to MP 138 + 2128 segment was operated during the 5 years preceding July 1,\n1970.\nRecords of the MAOP determination shall be submitted within 90 days of the\nissuance of the Final Order.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that EPNG maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the\ntotal to Mary. L. McDaniel P.E., Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be\nreported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of\nplans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions, and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n6","truncated":false,"body_characters":33295}