{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520071011M","title":"CPN PIPELINE COMPANY — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2007-07-09","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 192.911(c), 192.911(k), 192.911(l), 192.911(m)(1), 192.917(a), 192.917(c), 192.921(a)(1), 192.921(b), 192.933(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520071011m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520071011m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520071011m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520071011M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving CPN PIPELINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.911(c),  192.911(k),  192.911(l),  192.911(m)(1),  192.917(a),  192.917(c),  192.921(a)(1),  192.921(b),  192.933(c). The case was opened on 2007-07-09 and is reported as closed as of 2010-10-18. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520071011M_notice of amendment_07092007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520071011M/520071011M_notice%20of%20amendment_07092007.pdf\n\n520071011m_notice of amendment_07092007_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520071011M/520071011m_notice%20of%20amendment_07092007_text.pdf\n\n520071011M_Operator_Response_and_Request_for_Hearing_and_Request_for_Time_Extension_08032007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520071011M/520071011M_Operator_Response_and_Request_for_Hearing_and_Request_for_Time_Extension_08032007.pdf\n\n520071011M_Order Directing Amendment_10182010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520071011M/520071011M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_10182010.pdf\n\n520071011M_Order Directing Amendment_10182010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520071011M/520071011M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_10182010_text.pdf\n\n520071011m_notice of amendment_07092007_text.pdf\n\nSENT TO COMPLIANCE REGISTER\nHardcopy Electrontcall\n¹ of Copies'/ Date ~ 4 7\n12300 W Dakota Ave, SuIte 110\nLakewood, CO 80228\nU S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\nJuly 9, 2007\nMr. Mike Rogers\nSr, Vice President, Western Region\nCPN Pipeline Company\n3875 Hopyard Road, Suite 345\nPleasanton, CA 94588\nCPF 5-2007-1011M\nDear Mr. Rogers:\nOn January 30, February 1, 13 and 14, 2007, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code,\ninspected your Integrity Management Program (IMP) in Rio Vista, California.\nOn the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within\nCPN's IMP plan, The noted deficiencies are described below, Probable violations resulting\nfrom that same inspection were already sent to you in our letter, CPF No. 5-2007-1006, dated\nJune 11, 2007.\n1. Baseline Assessment Plan\n$192. 911 What are the elements of an integrity management program?\n(b) A baseline assessment plan meeting the requirements of $192. 919 and $192. 921.\n$192. 921 (a) Assessment methods. An operator must assess the integrity of the line\npipe in each covered segment by applying one or more of the following methods\ndepending on the threats to which the covered segment is susceptible. An operator\nmust select the method or methods best suited to address the threats identified to the\ncovered segment (See g 192. 917).\n\n\n\n(1) Internal inspection tool or tools capable of detecting corrosion, and any other\nthreats to which the covered segment is susceptible. An operator must follow\nASME/ANSI B31. 8S (ibr, see g 192. 7), section 6. 2 in selecting the appropriate\ninternal inspection tools for the covered segment. . .\n$192. 921 (b) Prioritizing segments. An operator must prioritize the covered pipeline\nsegments for the baseline assessment according to a risk analysis that considers the\npotential threats to each covered segment. The risk analysis must comply with the\nrequirements in g 192. 917.\n~ Item 1A: $192. 911(b) and $192. 921(a)(1)\nCPN has not established specifications defining their required ILI vendor and tool\nperformance. Also, CPN did not have procedures for running ILI tools in general.\n~ Item 1B: $192. 911(b) and $192. 921(b)\nThe identified potential threats listed on the Baseline Assessment Plan (BAP) do not\ncorrespond with key threats identified in the Integrity Assessment and Mitigation Plan.\nFor example, the BAP identified Third-Party Damage (TPD) as the only potential threat\nfor the Sunsweet segment, yet the Integrity Assessment and Mitigation Plan identifies\nTPD, external corrosion, and internal corrosion as the key threats. It is not clear that the\nassessment methods documented in the BAP are intended to assess all threats established\nby the risk analysis and documented in the Integrity Assessment and Mitigation Plan.\n2. Identify Threats, Data Integration, and Risk Assessment\n$192. 911 What are the elements of an integrity management program?\n(c) An identification of threats to each covered pipeline segment, which must include\ndata integration and a risk assessment. An operator must use the threat\nidentification and risk assessment to prioritize covered segments for assessment\n($192. 917) and to evaluate the merits of additional preventive and mitigative\nmeasures ($192. 935) for each covered segment.\n$192. 917 How does an operator identify potential threats to pipeline integrity and use\nthe threat identification in its integrity program?\n(a) Threat identification. An operator must identify and evaluate all potential threats\nto each covered pipeline segment. Potential threats that an operator must consider\ninclude, but are not limited to, the threats listed in ASME/ANSI B31. 8S (ibr, see\n$192. 7), section 2, which are as follows:\n(1) Time dependent threats such as internal corrosion, external corrosion, and\nstress corrosion cracking;\n(2) Static or resident threats, such as fabrication or construction defects;\n\n\n\n(3) Time independent threats such as third party damage and outside force\ndamage; and\n(4) Human error.\n(b) Data gathering and integration. To identify and evaluate the potential threats to a\ncovered pipeline segment, an operator must gather and integrate existing data and\ninformation on the entire pipeline that could be relevant to the covered segment. In\nperforming this data gathering and integration, an operator must follow the\nrequirements in ASME/ANSI B31. 8S, section 4. At a minimum, an operator must\ngather and evaluate the set of data specified in Appendix A to ASME/ANSI B31. 8S,\nand consider both on the covered segment and similar non-covered segments, past\nincident history, corrosion control records, continuing surveillance records,\npatrolling records, maintenance history, internal inspection records and all other\nconditions specific to each pipeline.\n(c) Risk assessment. An operator must conduct a risk assessment that follows\nASME/ANSI B31. 8S, section 5, and considers the identified threats for each covered\nsegment. An operator must use the risk assessment to prioritize the covered segments\nfor the baseline and continual reassessments ($/192. 919, 192. 921, 192. 937), and to\ndetermine what additional preventive and mitigative measures are needed ($192. 935)\nfor the covered segment.\n~ Item 2A: $192. 911(c) and $192. 917(a)\nThe IMP provides a criterion for eliminating Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) as a\npotential threat or concern if the pipeline operated at less than 74% of the Specified\nMinimum Yield Stress (SMYS), A basis for this criterion and its consistency with industry\nstandards has not been documented in the IM program.\n~ Item 2B: $192. 911(c) and $192. 917(a) ASME/ANSI B31. 8S, Section 2. 2\nCPN's threat identification process does not consider risks posed by potential interactive\nthreats.\n~ Item 2C: $192. 911(c) and $192. 917(c)\nCPN does not have a documented process that validates that risk assessment results are\nlogical and consistent with the operator's and industry's experience.\n3. Remediation\n$192. 911 What are the elements of an integrity management program?\n(e) Provisions meeting the requirements of $192. 933 for remediating conditions found\nduring an integrity assessment.\n\n\n\n$192. 933(a) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to address\nall anomalous conditions that the operator discovers through the integrity\nassessment. In addressing all conditions, an operator must evaluate all anomalous\nconditions and remediate those that could reduce a pipeline's integrity. An operator\nmust be able to demonstrate that the remediation of the condition will ensure that the\ncondition is unlikely to pose a threat to the integrity of the pipeline until the next\nreassessment of the covered segment. If an operator is unable to respond within the\ntime limits for certain conditions specified in this section, the operator must\ntemporarily reduce the operating pressure of the pipeline or take other action that\nensures the safety of the covered segment. If pressure is reduced, an operator must\ndetermine the temporary reduction in operating pressure using ASME/ANSI B31G\n(ibr, see $192. 7) or AGA Pipeline Research Committee Project PR-3-805\n(\"RSTRENG\"; ibr, see $192. 7) or reduce the operating pressure to a level not\nexceeding 80% of the level at the time the condition was discovered. (See appendix A\nto this part 192 for information on availability of incorporation by reference\ninformation). A reduction in operating pressure cannot exceed 365 days without an\noperator providing a technical justification that the continued pressure restriction\nwill not jeopardize the integrity of the pipeline.\n$192. 933(c) Schedule for evaluation and remediation. An operator must complete\nremediation of a condition according to a schedule that prioritizes the conditions for\nevaluation and remediation. Unless a special requirement for remediating certain\nconditions applies, as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, an operator must\nfollow the schedule in ASMK/ANSI B31. 8S (ibr, see $192. 7), section 7, Figure 4. If an\noperator cannot meet the schedule for any condition, the operator must justify the\nreasons why it cannot meet the schedule and that the changed schedule will not\njeopardize public safety. An operator must notify OPS in accordance with $192. 949\nif it cannot meet the schedule and cannot provide safety through a temporary\nreduction in operating pressure or other action. An operator must also notify a State\nor local pipeline safety authority when either a covered segment is located in a State\nwhere OPS has an interstate agent agreement, or an intrastate covered segment is\nregulated by that State.\n~ Item 3A: $192. 911(e) and $192. 933(c)\nThe CPN IMP does not require a documented justification, that includes the reasons why\nthe remediation schedule cannot be met and the basis for why the delayed schedule will not\njeopardize public safety.\n4. Management of Change\n$192. 911 What are the elements of an integrity management program'?\n(k) A management of change process as outlined in ASMK/ANSI B31. 8S, section 11.\n$192. 909(b) Notification. An operator must notify OPS, in accordance with $192. 949,\nof any change to the program that may substantially affect the program's\n-4-\n\n\n\nimplementation or may significantly modify the program or schedule for carrying out\nthe program elements. An operator must also notify a State or local pipeline safety\nauthority when either a covered segment is located in a State where OPS has an\ninterstate agent agreement, or an intrastate covered segment is regulated by that\nState. An operator must provide the notification within 30 days after adopting this\ntype of change into its program.\nASME B31. 8S-2001, Section 11\n(a) Formal management of change procedures shall be developed in order to identify\nand consider the impact of changes to pipeline systems and their integrity. These\nprocedures should be flexible enough to accommodate both major and minor\nchanges, and must be understood by the personnel that use them. Management of\nchange shall address technical, physical, procedural and organizational changes to\nthe system whether permanent or temporary. The process should incorporate\nplanning for each of these situations and consider the unique circumstances of each.\nA management of change process includes the following:\n(1) Reason for change\n(2) Authority for approving changes\n(3) Analysis of implications\n(4) Acquisition of required work permits\n(5) Documentation\n(6) Communication of change to affected parties\n(7) Time limitations\n(8) Qualification of staff\n(b) The operator shall recognize that system changes can require changes in the\nintegrity management program and conversely, results from the program can cause\nsystem changes. The following are examples that are gas pipeline specific but are by\nno means all inclusive. . .\n~ Item 5A: $192. 911(k) and ASMK B31. 8S-2001, Section 11(a)\nThe IMP BAP development and maintenance process does not require that the authority\nfor approving changes, the analysis of implications of changes, or that communication of\nchanges to affected parties be documented.\n~ Item 5B: $192. 911(k) and ASME B31. 8S-2001, Section 11(b)\nThe CPN Management of Change (MOC) process does not require incorporation of new\ninformation prior to the annual re-evaluation of the risk analysis.\n5. Quality Assurance\n$192. 911 What are the elements of an integrity management program?\n(l) A quality assurance process as outlined in ASMK/ANSI B31. 8S, Section 12,\n\n\n\n$192. 907(b) Implementation Standards. In carrying out this subpart, an operator\nmust follow the requirements of this subpart and of ASME/ANSI B31. SS (ibr, see\n$192. 7) and its appendices, where specified. An operator may follow an equivalent\nstandard or practice only when the operator demonstrates the alternative standard or\npractice provides an equivalent level of safety to the public and property. In the\nevent of a conflict between this subpart and ASME/ANSI B31. SS, the requirements in\nthis subpart control.\nASME B31. SS-2001, Section 12. 2, Quality Management Control.\n(b) Specifically, activities that should be included in the quality control program are\nas follows:\n(3) Results of the integrity management program and the quality control program\nshall be reviewed at predetermined intervals, making recommendations for\nimprovement.\n(4) The people involved in the integrity management program shall be competent,\naware of the program and all of its activities and shall be properly trained to\nexecute the activities within the program. Documentation of such competence,\nawareness and qualification, and the processes for their achievement, shall be part\nof the quality control plan.\n(7) Corrective actions to improve the integrity management program or quality\nplan shall be documented and the effectiveness of their implementation\nmonitored.\n(c) When an operator chooses to use outside resources to conduct any process, for\nexample pigging, that affects the quality of the integrity management program, the\noperator shall ensure control of such processes and document them within the quafity\nprogram.\n$192. 915(a) Supervisory personnel. The integrity management program must\nprovide that each supervisor whose responsibilities relate to the integrity\nmanagement program possesses and maintains a thorough knowledge of the integrity\nmanagement program and of the elements for which the supervisor is responsible.\nThe program must provide that any person who qualifies as a supervisor for the\nintegrity management program has appropriate training or experience in the area for\nwhich the person is responsible.\n$192. 915(b) Persons who carry out assessments and evaluate assessment results. The\nintegrity management program must provide criteria for the qualification of any\nperson—\n(1) Who conducts an integrity assessment allowed under this subpart; or\n(2) Who reviews and analyzes the results from an integrity assessment and\nevaluation; or\n(3) Who makes decisions on actions to be taken based on these assessments.\n~ Item SA: $192. 911(l) and ASME B31. SS-2001, section 12. 2(b)(3)\n\n\n\nIMP section 12. 6 requires an annual review of all key documents and data for each covered\nsegment with the appropriate covered segment IMP team. The reviews are to include\nrecommendations for improvement However, the applicable key documents to be\nreviewed have not been specified.\n~ Item 5B: $192. 911(l) and ASME B31. 8S-2001, section 12. 2(b)(7)\nThe process for identifying and tracking corrective actions to improve the integrity\nmanagement program and the quality assurance program has not been documented in the\nIMP.\n~ Item 5C: $192. 911(l) and ASME B31. 8S-2001, section 12. 2(c)\nCPN does not have a formalized process to document and ensure the quality of integrity\nmanagement processes when outside resources are used.\n~ Item 5D: $192. 911(l), ASME B31. 8S-2001, section 12. 2(b)(4) and $192. 915(a)8r(b)\nChapter 14 of the Integrity Management Overview does not provide minimum\nqualification requirements for supervisory personnel.\n6. Communication Plan\n$192. 911 What are the elements of an integrity management program?\n(m) A communication plan that includes the elements of ASME/ANSI B31. 8S, section\n10, and that includes procedures for addressing safety concerns raised by—\n(1) OPS; and\n(2) A State or local pipeline safety authority when a covered segment is located in\na State where OPS has an interstate agent agreement.\n~ Item 6A: $192. 911(m)(1) and $192. 911(m)(2)\nThe CPN IMP does not include a process for addressing safety concerns raised by OPS and\nState or local pipeline safety authorities\nRes onse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U. S. C. $ 60108(a) and 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 237. Enclosed\nas part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nCompliance ProceeCkngs. Please refer to the Notice of Amendment portion of this document\nand note the response options. Failure to respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice will\nbe deemed a waiver of your right to contest the allegations set forth above and will authorize\nthe Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, without further notice, to find facts as alleged\nin this Notice and to issue an Order Directing Amendment.\n\n\n\nIf, after opportunity for a hearing, your plans or procedures are found inadequate as alleged in\nthis Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans or procedures to correct the inadequacies\n(49 C. F. R. ) 190. 237). If you are not contesting this Notice, we propose that you submit your\namended procedures to my office within 30 days of receipt of this Notice. This period may be\nextended by written request for good cause. Once the inadequacies identified herein have been\naddressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement action will be closed.\nIn correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2007-1011M and, for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nChri oidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosure:, Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 J. Gilliam (¹118455)\n\n520071011M_Order Directing Amendment_10182010_text.pdf\n\nOCT 18 2010\nMr. Jack Fusco\nPresident and CEO\nCPN Pipeline Company\n717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1000\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 5-2007-1011M\nDear Mr. Fusco:\nEnclosed please find the Order Directing Amendment issued in the above-referenced case. It\nmakes findings of inadequate procedures and finds that CPN Pipeline Company has addressed\nthe inadequacies in its procedures that were cited in the Notice of Amendment. This\nenforcement action is now closed. Service of the Order Directing Amendment by certified mail\nis deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA\nMr. Scott Vickers\nCompliance Manager\nCPN Pipeline Company\n60 River Road\nRio Vista, CA 94571\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0041 0299]\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 )\nCPN Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 5-2007-1011M\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT\nOn January 30-February 1 and February 13-14, 2007, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a\nrepresentative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the integrity\nmanagement program of CPN Pipeline Company (CPN or Respondent) in Rio Vista, California.\nCPN, a subsidiary of Calpine Corporation, operates approximately 250 miles of natural gas\npipelines, primarily in California.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated July 9, 2007, a Notice of Amendment (Notice). The Notice alleged\ninadequacies in Respondent’s integrity management program and proposed, in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.237, that Respondent amend its integrity management procedures.\nCPN responded to the Notice by letter dated August 3, 2007. Respondent described the steps\nthat it would take to correct the inadequacies outlined in the Notice, requested an extension of\nthe deadline to complete the amendments, and reserved the right to a hearing.\nIn accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, a hearing was held via telephone conference on April\n10, 2008, with an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. Respondent\nwas represented by counsel during the hearing. The hearing addressed this enforcement action\nas well as a second enforcement action (CPF No. 5-2007-1006) involving allegations of violation\nthat arose from the same inspection.1\nIn its Response and at the hearing, the company did not contest the allegations that its procedures\nwere inadequate. Accordingly, based on a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s\nprocedures were inadequate as described in the Notice.\n1 The second case has been resolved. See In the Matter of CPN Pipeline Co., Final Order, CPF No. 5-2007-1006\n(Dec. 16, 2009).\n\n\n\n2\nOn April 22, 2008, CPN submitted copies of its amended procedures, which the Director has\nreviewed. Accordingly, based on the results of such review, I find that Respondent has corrected\nthe identified inadequacies.\nThis action is now closed. The terms and conditions of this Order Directing Amendment are\neffective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":22497}