{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520121010W","title":"EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-05-18","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.616(a), 192.616(c), 192.616(d), 192.616(i), 195.440, 195.440(c), 195.440(d), 195.440(i).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520121010w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520121010w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520121010w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520121010W","body":"Warning Letter involving EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.616(a),  192.616(c),  192.616(d),  192.616(i),  195.440,  195.440(c),  195.440(d),  195.440(i). The case was opened on 2012-05-18 and is reported as closed as of 2012-05-18. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520121010W_Warning letter_05182012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520121010W/520121010W_Warning%20letter_05182012.pdf\n\n520121010W_warning letter_05182012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520121010W/520121010W_warning%20letter_05182012_text.pdf\n\n520121010W_warning letter_05182012_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMay 18, 2012\nMr. Jesus Soto\nVice President, Operations Services\nEl Paso Natural Gas Company\n1001 Louisiana Street\nHouston, TX 77002\nCPF 5-2012-1010W\nDear Mr. Soto:\nOn August 16 - 19, 2011, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA) and the Arizona Corporation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code,\ninspected El Paso Natural Gas Company’s (EP) procedures for its Public Awareness Program required under 49\nC.F.R. §192.616 and §195.440. Total combined pipeline mileage for both hazardous gas and liquid pipeline\nsystems is 38,476, with only three (3) miles being in hazardous liquid pipeline service.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that EP has committed probable violations of the Pipeline\nSafety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable\nviolations are:\n1. §192.616 Public awareness.\n(a) Except for an operator of a master meter or petroleum gas system covered\nunder paragraph (j) of this section, each pipeline operator must develop\nand implement a written continuing public education program that follows\nthe guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) Recommended Practice (RP)\n1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7)...\n(e) The program must include activities to advise affected municipalities, school\ndistricts, businesses, and residents of pipeline facility locations.\n§ 195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute’s (API)\nRecommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3)…\n\n\n\n(e) The program must include activities to advise affected municipalities, school districts,\nbusinesses, and residents of pipeline facility locations.\nEP did not perform the following stakeholder audience identification. EP should have conducted\nevaluations of its program to determine the effectiveness of stakeholder notification, including\nlisting the counties and identifying a support facility outside the county in close proximity. EP\nshould have also tailored their list of activities after appropriate SIC Codes (located on Page 20 of\nEP’s Plan) and in Tables 2-3 of the RP 1162. EP also should have conducted an evaluation of its\nprogram to determine stakeholder audiences including emergency responders, public officials, and\nexcavators at the county level. EP should also verify that a neighboring county is not in close\nproximity, and therefore responsible for responding.\n2. §192.616 Public awareness.\n(i) The operator's program documentation and evaluation results must be available\nfor periodic review by appropriate regulatory agencies.\n195.440(i) The operator’s program documentation and evaluation results must be\navailable for periodic review by appropriate regulatory agencies.\nThe results of EP’s outreach were not documented or available for periodic review by regulatory\nagencies. EP should document what data is being evaluated and what metrics are being used.\n3. §192.616 Public awareness.\n(d) The operator's program must specifically include provisions to educate the\npublic, appropriate government organizations, and persons engaged in excavation\nrelated activities on:\n(1) Use of a one-call notification system prior to excavation and other damage\nprevention activities;\n(2) Possible hazards associated with unintended releases from a pipeline facility;\n(3) Physical indications that such a release may have occurred;\n(4) Steps that should be taken for public safety in the event of a pipeline release; and\n(5) Procedures for reporting such an event.\n§195.440(d) The operator’s program must specifically include provisions to educate\nthe public, appropriate government organizations, and persons engaged in\nexcavation related activities on:\n(1) Use of a one-call notification system prior to excavation and other damage\nprevention activities;\n(2) Possible hazards associated with unintended releases from a hazardous liquid or\ncarbon dioxide pipeline facility;\n(3) Physical indications that such a release may have occurred;\n(4) Steps that should be taken for public safety in the event of a hazardous liquid or\ncarbon dioxide pipeline release; and\n(5) Procedures to report such an event.\nEP’s program message type and content was not specific enough. EP should review the recommendations\nincluded in Section 4 (Message Content) of the RP 1162 Standard. For example, markers contained in the\nbaseline message were not specific to EP and right-of-way encroachment is not mentioned. EP did not include\ninformation about how emergency officials can access the operator’s emergency response plans covering their\n2\n\n\n\njurisdiction. For all stakeholders, markers contained on baseline messages were not specific to EP. They did not\ncontain information that notified the public that EP telephone numbers are on the markers or that markers do not\nspecify the exact location of the pipeline.\n4. §192.616 Public Awareness\n(c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations, including\nbaseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless the operator\nprovides justification in its program or procedural manual as to why compliance\nwith all or certain provisions of the recommended practice is not practicable and not\nnecessary for safety.\n§195.440(c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations,\nincluding baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless the\noperator provides justification in its program or procedural manual as to why\ncompliance with all or certain provisions of the recommended practice is not\npracticable and not necessary for safety.\nDuring the review of your program, it was noted that surveys performed by EP were not specific to stakeholder\naudiences, and do not match baseline material. Examples include: (1) For Affected public, a Calendar is not a\nchoice for a method to submit messages to the public, (2) Reports of suspicious behavior is not mentioned in\nbaseline messages, but is asked for in the survey, and EP’s survey uses “yellow” as the correct answer for\nmarkers while EP uses multiple colored markers, (3) For other stakeholders, such as emergency responders, the\nsurvey asked about awareness of facilities in their community, but the baseline information provided by El Paso\ndoesn’t include this message. Overall, it does not appear El Paso adequately conducted an effectiveness\nevaluation, and that the survey results alone do not constitute an evaluation. Further, it does not appear that El\nPaso performed an evaluation of the survey results.\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000\nfor each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. 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 correct the items identified in this letter.\nFailure to do so will result in El Paso Natural Gas Company being subject to additional\nenforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, please send all documents to our office\nat 12300 West Dakota Avenue, Suite 110, Lakewood, CO 80228, and in your correspondence\nplease refer to CPF 5-2012-1010W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this\nenforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of\nyour responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the\ncomplete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions\nyou believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the\nredacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal\n3\n\n\n\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 J. Kenerson (#134440)\n4","truncated":false,"body_characters":8966}