{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520131012","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":"2013-08-16","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 191.5, 192.707(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520131012.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520131012.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520131012","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520131012","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 191.5,  192.707(a). The case was opened on 2013-08-16 and is reported as closed as of 2015-10-07. Proposed civil penalty: $31,200. Assessed civil penalty: $27,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520131012_Closure Letter_10072015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520131012/520131012_Closure%20Letter_10072015.pdf\n\n520131012_Closure Letter_10072015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520131012/520131012_Closure%20Letter_10072015_text.pdf\n\n520131012_Final Order_04032015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520131012/520131012_Final%20Order_04032015.pdf\n\n520131012_Final Order_04032015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520131012/520131012_Final%20Order_04032015_text.pdf\n\n520131012_NOPV PCP PCO_08162013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520131012/520131012_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08162013.pdf\n\n520131012_NOPV PCP PCO_08162013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520131012/520131012_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08162013_text.pdf\n\n520131012_Operator Response and Hearing Request_09192013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520131012/520131012_Operator%20Response%20and%20Hearing%20Request_09192013.pdf\n\n520131012_Final Order_04032015_text.pdf\n\nApril 3, 2015\nMr. Mark Kissel\nPresident\nEl Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.\n2 North Nevada Avenue\nColorado Springs, CO 80903\nRe: CPF No. 5-2013-1012\nDear Mr. Kissel:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $27,500, and specifies corrective action that must\nbe completed. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil\npenalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the\nDirector, Western Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order is\nmade pursuant to 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, OPS\nMs. Jessica Toll, Assistant General Counsel, Kinder Morgan, Inc.\n370 Van Gordon St., Lakewood, CO 80228\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 )\n)\n)\nEl Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C., )\nRespondent. )\n___________________________________ )\n) CPF No. 5-2013-1012\nFINAL ORDER\nOn April 23-25, 2013, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Arizona\nCorporation Commission, on behalf of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration’s Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an inspection of a pipeline operated\nby El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. (EPNG or Respondent).1 The 30-inch L2000 natural\ngas pipeline was damaged by third-party excavation on April 23, 2013, in western Arizona.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued a Notice of\nProbable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) to\nRespondent on August 16, 2013. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice alleged\nthat EPNG had committed one violation of the natural gas pipeline safety regulations, proposed a\ncivil penalty of $31,200, and proposed certain corrective action. In addition, the Notice included\na warning item advising Respondent to correct another probable violation.\nEPNG responded to the Notice and requested a hearing by letter dated September 19, 2013\n(Response). Respondent submitted supplemental information on February 24, 2014 (Pre-hearing\nSubmittal). In accordance with § 190.211, a hearing was held on March 5, 2014, in Lakewood,\nColorado, before a Presiding Official from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA. After the\nhearing, Respondent submitted a post-hearing brief on April 30, 2014 (Brief).\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(a), which states:\n1 EPNG is a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., operating approximately 10,000 miles\nof pipeline transporting natural gas primarily in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. This information is\nreported by EPNG for calendar year 2013 pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 191.17.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2013-1012\nPage 2\n§192.707 Line markers for mains and transmission lines.\n(a) Buried pipelines. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this\nsection, a line marker must be placed and maintained as close as practical\nover each buried main and transmission line:\n(1) At each crossing of a public road and railroad; and\n(2) Wherever necessary to identify the location of the transmission line\nor main to reduce the possibility of damage or interference.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 192.707(a) by failing to have line markers over\nthe L2000 pipeline wherever necessary to identify the location of the line to reduce the\npossibility of damage or interference. The Notice alleged that the pipeline had been struck and\ndamaged by a third-party excavator on April 23, 2013. At the time of the event, the Notice\nalleged, there were no line markers in the area identifying the location of Respondent’s pipeline.\nThe Notice alleged that the closest marker was between 0.25 and 0.50 miles away from the\nexcavation site. The Notice also stated that EPNG had previously been issued a warning for the\nsame conduct after it had allegedly failed to place adequate line markers on its 2103 pipeline in\nSouth Tucson, Arizona.\nEPNG contested the alleged violation and offered additional information. Respondent stated that\nthe excavator who damaged the pipeline was working for the owner of an adjacent farm in a\nrural agricultural area. Without providing advance notice of the excavation through a one-call\nnotification system, the excavator operated a trackhoe in a ditch along a private dirt road and\nstruck Respondent’s pipeline. The strike caused several gouges and a pin hole leak that began\nslowly releasing gas. EPNG responded to the event by closing valves on both sides of the\ndamage, initiating a controlled blowdown, and repairing the pipe.\nRespondent maintained that it had complied with § 192.707(a) by placing four line markers in\nthe area of the L2000 pipeline. Respondent asserted that it had one line marker 2063 feet\n(approximately 0.39 miles) to the west of the excavation damage and one line marker 670 feet\n(approximately 0.13 miles) to the east.\n2 Respondent stated that two additional line markers were\ninstalled where the pipe crosses the private road, but those markers were likely knocked down\nprior to or during the excavation on April 23, 2013. After the event, EPNG again placed\nadditional line markers at the location as a precautionary measure. Respondent argued that while\nmarkers are required at public road crossings, the regulation does not require markers at private\nroad crossings or require that they be visible from the immediately preceding and following\nmarkers.\nRespondent also contested the relevance of the previous warning that was referenced in the\nNotice. In the earlier case, Respondent asserted, a line marker had been vandalized and new\nmarkers were installed the day after EPNG became aware of the issue.\n2 Brief at 3.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2013-1012\nPage 3\nA. Location of Line Markers in the Area of the Excavation\nPHMSA first determines as a factual matter whether Respondent had line markers present in the\nvicinity of the excavation site on April 23, 2013.\nOPS produced evidence that its Inspector arrived at the incident site on April 23, 2013. He\nstayed through the morning of April 25, 2013. During this period, he walked around the area of\nthe excavation and could only locate one line marker belonging to Respondent. The marker was\nadjacent to the closest public roadway, Harquahala Valley Road, at an estimated distance of\n0.25 to 0.50 miles west of the damage site. The Inspector did not see any other line markers for\nRespondent’s pipeline during his time at the site. The Inspector’s visual observations were\ncorroborated by several photographs that depict the landscape around the pipeline.3 Other than\nthe marker at Harquahala Valley Road, no other markers can be seen in the photographs.\nDuring the inspection, the Inspector also interviewed the manager of the third-party excavator\nwho struck Respondent’s pipeline. The manager stated that he did not see any line markers in\nthe area before breaking ground. During the incident, farm personnel were evacuated from the\narea. One individual located a nearby line marker belonging to another pipeline company. The\nperson called the number on the marker to report the incident, and that company notified\nRespondent.\nRespondent agreed there was a line marker about 0.39 miles west of the incident site at\nHarquahala Valley Road. Respondent asserted that a second marker was closer to the site of the\ndamage, approximately 0.13 miles to the east of the site. At the hearing, Respondent claimed\nthat the marker could be seen in one of the photographs offered by OPS. Respondent also\npresented an affidavit and testimony of its Operations Specialist, who stated that two additional\nEPNG pipeline markers, one of which was damaged, were discovered in a ditch near the\nexcavation site during the pipeline repair.\nHaving considered the evidence, PHMSA finds the testimony and documents presented by OPS\nwere credible and substantial. Evidence of two eyewitnesses were offered, both of whom were\npresent on April 23, 2013. Both witnesses noted a lack of line markers at and around the area of\nthe excavation. The eyewitness evidence was corroborated by photographs taken the date of the\nincident. The evidence presented by Respondent, on the other hand, consisted mostly of\nconclusory statements with little to no corroboration. Respondent stated that it had a line marker\nplaced 0.13 miles east of the incident location, but no documentation in the form of photographs,\nbusiness records, or eyewitness testimony was offered to corroborate the claim. Although\nRespondent asserted the marker could be seen in one of the photographs already in evidence,\nafter a careful review PHMSA finds no marker can be seen in that photograph.\nIn addition, Respondent’s Operations Specialist stated in an affidavit that he found two line\nmarkers at the scene of the incident. This testimony purportedly corroborated Respondent’s\ncontention that two additional line markers had been placed at the site of the incident and then\n3 OPS Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Aug. 16, 2013), Exhibit A-2.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2013-1012\nPage 4\nwere removed or damaged unbeknownst to Respondent. Accepting as true that two line markers\nwere discovered in a ditch at the scene of the incident, the evidence is still insufficient to show\nhow recently the markers were present in their original location, or that they were present at the\ntime of the incident. Respondent stated that it patrolled its pipeline twice annually, but presented\nno records from those patrols to document observation of the markers. The markers could have\nbeen knocked down long before the incident.4\nHaving considered the evidence, PHMSA finds the closest line marker in the area of\nRespondent’s pipeline on the date of the excavation was 0.39 miles west of the site at\nHarquahala Valley Road. There is insufficient evidence that any other EPNG line markers were\npresent and observable on that date.\nB. Compliance with Applicable Safety Standards\nHaving found there was only one line marker in the area, PHMSA must determine whether that\nmarker satisfied the applicable standards for pipeline marking.\nSection § 192.707(a) requires operators of gas transmission pipelines to have line markers as\nclose as practical over each pipeline.5 The markers must be placed and maintained at each\ncrossing of a public road and railroad and “[w]herever necessary to identify the location of the\ntransmission line . . . to reduce the possibility of damage or interference.”6 The purpose of this\nregulation is to “increase the likelihood that outsiders will seek assistance in locating\nunderground lines before excavating.” 7\nAs explained in prior enforcement cases, the regulations for line marking do not establish a\nuniform distance between markers along every pipeline.8 The regulations provide some\nflexibility for operators to mark their pipelines in a manner appropriate for their system, as long\nas placement of the markers is sufficient to identify the location of the pipeline to reduce the\npossibility of third-party excavation damage.\n4 There were also some inconsistencies between the Operations Specialist’s affidavit and his testimony at\nthe hearing, specifically with regard to when the markers were found and when they were disposed of.\nThe Operations Specialist testified that he had taken pictures of the markers, but the pictures were\nsubsequently lost. The agency Inspector denied ever seeing any markers discovered while he was there.\n5 There are certain exceptions to this requirement in § 192.707(b), which are not relevant here.\n6 § 192.707(a).\n7 Line Markers for Mains and Transmission Lines, 40 Fed. Reg. 13502 (Mar. 27, 1975).\n8 Magellan Pipeline Company, LP, CPF 4-2012-5010, Item 2, 2014 WL 5431188 (Sept. 2, 2014)\n(discussing line marking requirements and “line-of-sight” for hazardous liquid pipelines). Prior\nenforcement materials can be viewed at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement (follow links for\nenforcement actions since 2002 and then actions issued by year).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2013-1012\nPage 5\nThe aerial photograph of Respondent’s L2000 pipeline demonstrates the pipeline runs west to\neast along a private dirt access road in a rural agricultural area.\n9 In the area of the incident, the\npipeline bends abruptly north, crosses under the private roadway and irrigation ditch where the\nexcavation occurred, and then turns abruptly eastward again.\nWhile § 192.707(a) does not state that line markers are required at each crossing of a private\nroad like it does for “each crossing of a public road,” the regulation does require operators to\nplace line markers if necessary to identify the location of the pipeline to reduce the possibility of\ndamage, including at or near a private road crossing if necessary.\n10\nIn this case, the closest line marker to the excavation site was 0.39 miles—a distance of more\nthan five football fields. This distance coupled with the change in direction of the pipeline at the\nroad crossing was not enough to alert people to the location of the L2000 pipeline to reduce the\npossibility of damage at the incident site. Accordingly, PHMSA finds Respondent did not have\nsufficient line markers at the time of the incident to identify the location of the pipeline.\nC. Previous Warning and Other Issues Raised by Respondent\nRespondent objected to a statement in the Notice that EPNG had previously been issued a\nwarning for the same issue. Respondent argued the prior warning had to do with line markers\nthat were vandalized, which is distinct from the line marking issue in the present case.\nPHMSA recognizes the factual differences between the two cases. Based on a review of the\nViolation Report in this case, PHMSA confirms the prior warning was not considered a “prior\noffense” for purposes of determining whether a violation occurred in this case, or for purposes of\ncalculating an appropriate civil penalty.\n11\nRespondent also noted that the third-party excavator in this case never made a one-call\nnotification before starting to excavate as required by law.\n12 Respondent indicated the excavator\nhad received Respondent’s public awareness mailings on multiple occasions, including on\nDecember 7, 2012.13 Respondent contended that if a one-call notification been made, the\ndamage would have been avoided because EPNG would have marked the location of the line and\nwould have been present during the excavation if planned within 25 feet of its line.\n9 Pre-hearing Submittal, Exhibit C.\n10 § 192.707(a)(2).\n11 The Violation Report noted that the alleged violation in the present case was not a repeat violation.\n12 Excavators have a duty before engaging in excavation to make a one-call notification to establish the\nlocation of underground facilities in the area. 49 U.S.C. § 60114(d).\n13 Under § 192.616, pipeline operators must have a program for making the public aware of nearby\nburied pipelines and steps for preventing and responding to incidents.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2013-1012\nPage 6\nPHMSA recognizes damage prevention is the responsibility of many parties, not only pipeline\noperators. Respondent’s conduct was not alleged to be a causal factor in the accidental release of\nnatural gas. While the incident could have potentially been avoided if the excavator used\none-call, that does not impact whether Respondent had adequate markers under § 192.707(a).\nD. Conclusion\nPHMSA finds Respondent violated § 192.707(a) as alleged in the Notice, by failing to have line\nmarkers over the L2000 pipeline wherever necessary to identify the location of the line to reduce\nthe possibility of damage or interference.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken 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. The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $31,200 for the violation\ncited in Item 2. Respondent requested that the civil penalty be withdrawn or reduced.\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225,\nPHMSA must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances and gravity of the\nviolation, including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability;\nthe history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply\nwith the pipeline safety regulations; and the effect on Respondent’s ability to continue in\nbusiness. In addition, PHMSA may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation and\nsuch other matters as justice may require.\nThe proposed penalty amount was based on assertions in the Notice and Violation Report\nrelevant to the penalty assessment criteria. With regard to nature, circumstances and gravity of\nthe violation, the Violation Report stated that a civil penalty was appropriate because the lack of\nline markers in the area gave a false impression that the area was clear of any buried natural gas\nlines. The Violation Report suggested a lower level of gravity due to the rural area in which the\nviolation occurred. The Violation Report did not suggest the violation was a causal factor in the\npipeline incident.\nBased on a review of the evidence, PHMSA finds these assertions are accurate and the proposed\ncivil penalty amount is supported by the nature, circumstances and gravity of the violation.\nWith respect to culpability and good faith in attempting to comply, the Violation Report\nsuggested that no penalty reduction was appropriate because Respondent failed to take actions to\ncomply with a regulatory requirement that was clearly applicable.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2013-1012\nPage 7\nBased on a review of the evidence, PHMSA finds Respondent did take some steps to comply\nwith the applicable requirement even though Respondent did not ultimately achieve full\ncompliance. Respondent submitted evidence that it had installed two additional markers in the\narea of the incident site, but the markers were damaged at an unknown time by an unknown\nparty. PHMSA finds the fact that additional markers were previously installed should be\nfactored into the penalty assessment, even though there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate\nthe markers were present at the time of the incident.\nPHMSA considers the history of Respondent’s prior offenses and the effect on Respondent’s\nability to continue in business. The Violation Report noted a total of five prior offenses in the\nfive-year period prior to issuance of the Notice. Respondent did not claim the proposed penalty\nwould affect its ability to continue in business.\nAccordingly, for the reasons stated above, Respondent is assessed a reduced civil penalty of\n$27,500 for the violation of § 192.707(a).\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $27,500 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to the violation cited in Item 2. Under\n49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601.\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. EPNG must ensure that it has written procedures specifying that markers be\nplaced wherever necessary to identify the location of transmission lines or mains\nin order to reduce the possibility of damage or interference.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2013-1012\nPage 8\n2. Submit documentation demonstrating compliance within 60 days of receipt of this\nOrder. Documentation must be submitted to the Director, Western Region,\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 12300 W. Dakota Ave.,\nSuite 110, Lakewood, CO 80228.\n3. It is requested that EPNG maintain documentation of the safety improvement\ncosts 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\ncost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and\nanalyses; and (2) total cost associated with physical changes to pipeline\ninfrastructure, including pipeline replacement and additions.\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.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 1, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 192 and specifically\nconsidered it to be a warning item. In accordance with § 190.205, an operator may respond to a\nwarning, but PHMSA does not adjudicate whether a violation occurred. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 191.5 – Respondent’s alleged failure to report the event on April 23, 2013, at\nthe earliest practicable moment following discovery. The Notice alleged the event met\nthe criteria for a reportable incident because the total amount of gas lost as a result of the\nleak, plus the amount of gas released during Respondent’s intentional blow-down to\nrepair the pipeline, equaled more than the 3 million cubic feet threshold for reporting.\nIn its written submissions and at the hearing, EPNG contested the allegation that the event was a\nreportable incident. In particular, Respondent noted that only approximately 200,000 cubic feet\nof gas was lost unintentionally as a result of the failure. After the failure was discovered and the\npipeline was isolated, EPNG decided to blow down the line to make the repair. Respondent\nargued the subsequent blow-down was voluntary, intentional, controlled, and did not contribute\nto the volume of gas that was lost unintentionally for purpose of the reporting regulation.14\n14 Under §§ 191.3(1)(iii) and 191.5(a), an immediately reportable incident includes the release of gas\nfrom a pipeline that results in an “unintentional estimated gas loss of three million cubic feet or more.”\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2013-1012\nPage 9\nIn its Post-hearing Brief, EPNG indicated that it had resolved this issue with the OPS Western\nRegion and no longer requested a determination as to whether the facts alleged in the Notice\nwould support a violation.\nSince this item is a warning, PHMSA makes no finding as to whether the facts alleged would\nconstitute a violation.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a petition for reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,\nEast Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, D.C. 20590, no later than 20 days after receipt of the\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 filing of a petition automatically stays\nthe payment of any civil penalty assessed, however, the other terms of the order, including the\ncorrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\n_____________________________ ____________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n520131012_Closure Letter_10072015_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nOctober 7, 2015\nMr. Gary Buchler\nVice President, Engineering/Operations\nEl Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.\n1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000\nHouston, Texas 77002\nCPF 5-2013-1012\nDear Mr. Buchler:\nOn April 3, 2015, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to El Paso Natural Gas Company a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This\nOrder included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of\nthe documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been\ndetermined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.\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,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 T. Finch\n\n520131012_NOPV PCP PCO_08162013_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nAugust 16, 2013\nMr. Gary Buchler\nVice President, Engineering/Operations\nEl Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.\nA Kinder Morgan Company\n1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000\nHouston, Texas 77002\nCPF 5-2013-1012\nDear Mr. Buchler:\nOn April 23-25, 2013, a representative from the Arizona Corporation Commission, on behalf of\nthe U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected El Paso\nNatural Gas, LLC (EPNG)’s, a Kinder Morgan Company, EPNG 2000 mainline pipe located\nnear Milepost 391 in Western Arizona.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that El Paso has committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the\nprobable violations are:\n\n\n\n1. §191.5 Immediate notice of certain incidents.\n(a) At the earliest practicable moment following discovery, each operator shall give\nnotice in accordance with paragraph\n(b) of this section of each incident as defined in §191.3.\nEPNG failed to report to the National Response Center an incident involving pipeline damage as\na result of an excavation activity. This incident occurred on April 23, 2013, near Milepost 391,\n5901 South 515th Avenue, Harquahala Valley, Arizona. The total amount of gas released from\nboth the leak and a blow-down of a 16-mile isolated segment to allow for repairs was 23,157,000\ncubic feet. Pursuant to §191.3, an ‘incident’ includes any unintentional estimated gas loss of\nthree million cubic feet or more. EPNG should have reported this incident at the earliest\npracticable moment following discovery.\n2. §192.707. Line markers for mains and transmission lines.\n(a) Buried pipelines. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a line\nmarker must be placed and maintained as close as practical over each buried main\nand transmission line:\n(1) At each crossing of a public road and railroad; and\n(2) Wherever necessary to identify the location of the transmission line or main to\nreduce the possibility of damage or interference.\nEPNG failed to place adequate line markers on the EPNG 2000 pipeline. Section 192.707\nrequired EPNG to place line markers wherever necessary to identify the location of the\ntransmission line or main to reduce the possibility of damage or interference. The EPNG 2000\nline was struck and damaged by an excavator on April 23, 2013, causing a leak and the necessary\nblow down of 16 miles of 30-inch diameter pipeline in order to repair this leak. The total amount\nof released gas exceeded 23 million cubic feet. At the time of the incident, there were no line\nmarkers in the area identifying the location of the EPNG line. The line marker nearest to the\ndamage site was located approximately ¼ to ½ mile west of the damage site. Following this\nincident EPNG personnel installed additional line markers along this pipeline. PHMSA\npreviously issued EPNG a warning item (See CPF 5-2013-1003W, Item 3) for this same\nviolation, § 192.707, for failure to place adequate line markers on its 2103 line in South Tucson,\nArizona.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United states Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000\nfor each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documentation involved in the above probable violation and has recommended that\nyou be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $31,200 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n2 $31,200\n\n\n\nWarning Items\nWith respect to item number 1, 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 this item. Failure to do\nso may result in additional enforcement action.\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item number 2, pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to El Paso.\nPlease refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this\nNotice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Compliance 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\nyou believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment\nunder 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second\ncopy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted\nand an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). 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.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2013-1012 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format to PHP-WRADMIN@dot.gov whenever\npossible.\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 T. Finch (#143558)\nArizona Corporation Commission - Mr. Robert Miller\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 Company, L.L.C. (EPNG),\na Kinder Morgan Company, a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial\nrequirements to ensure the compliance of El Paso with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to the placement of adequate\nline markers for mains and transmission lines. EPNG must ensure that it has\nwritten procedures specifying that markers be placed wherever necessary to\nidentify the location of transmission line or mains in order to reduce the\npossibility of damage or interference. Third-party damage occurred on April 23,\n2013. Therefore, it is clear that the markers were not placed in an area to reduce\nthe possibility of damage.\nEPNG must complete Compliance Item #1 within 60 days of issuance of the Final\nOrder.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C., a\nKinder Morgan Company, maintain documentation of the safety improvement\ncosts associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to\nChris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1)\ntotal cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and\nanalyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other\nchanges to pipeline infrastructure.","truncated":false,"body_characters":35077}