{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520061006","title":"KERN RIVER GAS TRANSMISSION CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2006-02-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.917(b), 192.917(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520061006.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520061006.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520061006","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520061006","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving KERN RIVER GAS TRANSMISSION CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.917(b),  192.917(c). The case was opened on 2006-02-22 and is reported as closed as of 2007-04-09. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520061006_Final Order_12112006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520061006/520061006_Final%20Order_12112006.pdf\n\nCPF_NO_5-2006-1006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520061006/CPF_NO_5-2006-1006.pdf\n\n520061006_Final Order_12112006.pdf\n\n@\nU.S. Deportment\nof Tronsporlollon\nPipeline ond Hozdrdous\nMoleriols Sofety Adminislrotion\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D C. 20590\ni:r'': 1 i\nMr. Micheal Dunn\nVice President, Operations, IT & Engineering\nKern River Gas Transmission Co\n2755E Cottonwood Pkwy Ste 300\nSalt Lake City, UT 84121-6949\nRe: CPFNo.5-2006-1006\nDear Mr. Dunn:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety\nin the above-referenced case. It makes a finding ofviolation and specifies actions to be taken to\ncomply with the pipeline safety regulations. It also withdraws one of the allegations of violation.\nWhen the terms of the compliance order are completed, as determined by the Director, Western\nRegion, this enforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of this Final Order constitutes\nservice under 49 C.F.R. I 190.5.\nSincerely,\niltt\n14 *rc I/ L---\n\\ l\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\nWA CERTIFIED WIL -RETURN RECEIPTREOUESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATNRIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\nKern River Gas Transmission Company,\nRespondent\nCPF No.5-2006-1006\n)\nF'INAL ORDER\nOn July I l-15 and 2518,2005, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. $ 60117, representatives of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) conducted an on-site pipeline safety\ninspection of Respondent's Integrity Management Program (IMP) in Salt Lake City, Utah. As a\nresult of the inspection, the Director, Westem Region, issued to Respondent, by letter dated\nFebruary 22,2006, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. $ 190.207, the Notice alleged that Respondent committed violations\nof 49 C.F.R. $ 192.917 and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the\nalleged violations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated March 27, 2006 (Response). Respondent\ncontested the allegations ofviolation, offered information in explanation ofthe allegations, and\nrequested a hearing. The hearing was held on June 7,2006 in Lakewood, Colorado- Respondent\nsubmitted a written post-hearing statement dated June 30, 2006 (Post-hearing Statement).\nF'INDING OF' }IIOLATION\nItem 1 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 192.917(b) by failing to\nanalyze all relevant information and risk factors to identifo and evaluate potential threats to\npipeline segments in a high consequence area. The Notice alleged that Respondent's risk\nanalysis database did not contain complete information on maximum allowable'operating\npressure, pipe size, material properties, and coating information, which are required to be\nincluded under g 192.917(b) and the ASME 831.85 standard incorporated by reference.\nIn its Response and at the hearing,, Respondent acknowledged that some data was missing from\nits risk analysis database. Respondent argued, however, that the ASME B31.8S standard\nprescribes methods for addressing missing data and that Respondent complied with those\nmethods. Respondent further explained that subject matter experts evaluated the results of the\nrisk analysis and determined that the missing data did not affect the outcome of the risk analysis.\n\n\n\nSection 192.917 of the gas transmission pipeline integrity management regulations requires\noperators to identify all potential threats to each pipeline segment in a high consequence area and\nconduct a risk assessment that considers those tlreats and prioritizes segments for integrity\nassessment, Section 192.917(b) specifies that operators must gather and integrate existing data\nand information on the entire pipeline to identify and evaluate potential integrity threats. \"In\nperforming this data gathering and integration, an operator must follow the requirements in\nASME/ANSI B3l.8S, section 4. At a minimum, an operator must gather and evaluate the set of\ndata specified in Appendix A to ASME/ANSI B31 .8S . . . .\"' Section 4'2 of ASME 83 I .8S\nstates that an operator \"shall collect, at a minimum\" the data elements specified in Appendix A,\nincluding operating pressure, pipe size, material properties, and coating information'\nAppendix A also addresses instances where data may be missing or questionable. \"Where the\noperator is missing data, conservative assumptions shall be used when performing the risk\nassessment or alternatively the segment shall be placed in a higher priority category.\" Section\n5.7(e) of the standard, cited by Respondeni, addresses risk assessments and staies: \"For missing\nor questionable data, the operator should determine and document the default values that will be\nused and why they were chosen. The operator should choose default values that conservatively\nreflect the values of other similar segments on the pipeline or in the operator's system.\"\nIn accordance with $ 192.917(b), Respondent must identify potential threats to its pipelines by\ngathering and integrating the data elements specified in Appendix A to ASME 83l.8S, including\nmaximum allowable operating pressure, pipe size, material properties, and coating information.\nIf data is missing, Respondent must use default values (conservative assumptions) when\nperforming the risk assessment and should determine and document the default values used and\nthe reasons why those values were chosen'\nRespondent acknowledged at the hearing and in its written responses that it did not gather and\nintegrate all of the data pertaining to maximum allowable operating pressure, pipe size, material\nproperties, and coating information (although Respondent asserted that most of the information\nietitea to those elements was included). Respondent presented no documentation explaining\nwhy such basic pipeline information was not gathered and integrated as required. Instead,\nRespondent stated that it utilized a process to address the missing data as provided for under\nASME B31.SS. Respondent explained that the process used to complete the risk analysis\ninvolved a software prcgram and algorithm that \"[!]y design utilizes conservative\nassumptions when faced with unknown or missing data.\"z l,lowever, Respondent did not provide\nfurthei details and documentation of the process. For example, Respondent did not provide\ndocumentation to show how defhults values were chosen to replace missing data or what the\neffects of those values were on the risk analysis. Although Respondent stated that subject matter\nexperts evaluated the results of the risk model and confirmed that the missing data had no impact\non relative risk rankings (compared to subsequent models), Respondent did not provide any\ndocumentation of the experts' analyses to support Respondent's statement that the missing data\nt 49 C.F.R. $ 192.917(b). The ASME 831.8S standard for managing gas pipeline system integrity is published by\nthe American Society of Mechanical Engineers and is incotporated by reference at 49 C.F.R. $ 192.7.\n2 Respondent's Posl-hearing Statement, p.2 (June 30,2006)'\n\n\n\n3\nhad no impact.'\nAlthough Respondent stated that it used conservative default values to address missing data in\naccordance with $ 192.917(b) and ASME 83 1.8S, Respondent did not present suffrcient\ndocumentation of the process or supportive analysis to show compliance. During the hearing,\nRespondent admitted that it could not provide adequate documentation of the process.\nRespondent argued that $ 192.917(b) and ASME 83l.8S do not require documentation, because\nsection 5.7(e) of ASME 831.8S states only that operators \"should determine and document the\ndefault values that will be used and why they were chosen.\"\" As explained to Respondent during\nthe hearing, however, PHMSA expects operators to implement \"should\" statements in industry\nstandards that are invoked by regulation.' If an operator chooses not to implement a \"should\"\nstatement, tle operator must document in its integrity management program a sound technical\nbasis for why the operator has chosen not to implement it.o Moreover, PHMSA has published on\nits Gas Transmission Pipeline Integrity Management web site the actual inspection protocols\nused by PHMSA in conducting compliance inspections. Inspection Protocol C.02 perlaining to\ndata gathering and integration states: \"Ifthe operator lacks sufhcient data or where daia q-uality\nis suspect, verify that the operator has followed the requirements in ASME B31 .8S [and that] ' . .\n[r]ecords are maintained that identiff how unsubstantiated data are used, so that the impact on\nthe variability and accuracy of assessment results can be considered.\"T\nIn the present case, Respondent did not gather and integrate each data element listed in Appendix\nA to ASME 83l.8S as required, and provided no justification for the missing data. Respondent\ndid not document a process used to address the missing data, including what default values wete\nchosen to replace missing data, why those values were chosen, how they were used, and how the\nvalues impacted the assessment results. Respondent did not provide any technical basis for its\nfailure to document this process. Accordingly, I find Respondent violated $ 192.917(b). This\nfinding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\n3 Respondent's Response, pp. I 3 (March 27, 2006) and Post-hearing Statement, pp. 3 & 6 (June 30' 2006)'\nRespondent also argued that since the missing data had no impact on risk rankings, the process was valid and met\n.rguluto.y requirerients. Since the allegation is that Respondent's process did not comply with $ 192'917'\nRespondent's assertions concerning the outcome ofthal process are not relgvant.\na Section 5.?(e) of ASME 83 l.8S (emphasis added).\n5 This expectation and other guidance material concerning compliance with the integrity management regulalions\nare communicated to operators via PHMSA's Gas Transmission Pipeline Integrity Management web site at\nhttp://primis.phmsa.dot.gbvlgasimp. Specifically, Frequently Asked Question (FAQ)No- 244 states: \"tyhat is the\nOfS p*itio\" *itn ugora i impiemeitation { tshoutd' statements in industry slandards thal are invoked by the\nrute? OPS expects operators to implement 'should' statements in industry standards that are invoked by the rule'\nOperators maychoosi to implemeni an alternative approach in meeting the recommendations of invoked standards.\ntithis approach is taken, program requirements for the altcrnative approach must exist in IM Program documents\nand recoids must be generatid by the alternative approach. The IM Program documents must also technically\njustiff that the altemitive approach provides an equivalent level of protection. If an operator chooses not to\nimplement a .should' statement in an invoked standard, a sound technical basis for why it has not been implemented\nmust be documented in the IM Program documents.\" Wlile answers to FAQs are not rules, they provide informal\nguidanco to the regulated community about how to implement their integrity management programs in accordance\nwith the requirements of 49 C.F.R. part 192.\no Id_\n? Protocol C.02 \"Data Gathering and Integration\" available at http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/sasimp.\no\n\n\n\n4\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION\nItem 2 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C,F.R. $ 192.917(c). Based on t}re\nrecommendation of the Director, Western Region, this allegation is withdrawn. The\ncorresponding compliance order item is also withdrawn.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to the violation of 49 C.F.R. $ 192.917(b)\nin Item 1. Under 49 U.S.C. $ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or\nwho owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under Chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. $ 601l8(b) and\n49 C.F.R. $ 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance\nwith t}le pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations. Respondent must-\n1. In accordance with,ig C.F.R. S 192.917, complete a risk analysis and ranking of each\npipeline segment located in a high consequence area. The risk analysis model must\ninclude all applicable risk factors that influence the integrity of covered pipeline\nsegments and must document relevant input and data to ensure repeatable results.\n2. Complete this item within 60 days of receipt of this Final Order and submit\ndocumentation of completion to the Director, Westem Region, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration, 12300 W Dakota Ave Ste 110, Lakewood, CO 80228-\n2585.\nThe Director, Westem Region, may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the\nrequired items upon a written request timely submitted by the Respondent demonstrating good\ncause for an extension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties up to\n$100,000 p\". duy for each violation and in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief\nin a district court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. $ 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this\nFinal Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The terms of the order, including\nany required corrective action, remain in full effect unless the Associate Administrator' upon\n.\"qu\"rq grants a stay. The terms and conditions of'this Final Order are effective on receipt.\nl j * r . I l\nDate lssued\nL. Willke\nAssociate Administrator","truncated":false,"body_characters":14255}