{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520140001W","title":"NRG ENERGY SERVICES — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2014-10-29","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 191.17(a), 192.615(b)(2), 192.616(a), 192.616(b), 192.616(c), 192.616(d), 192.616(e), 192.616(f), 192.616(g), 192.707(d)(1), 192.707(d)(2), 192.743(a), 192.743(b), 192.805.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520140001w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520140001w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520140001w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520140001W","body":"Warning Letter involving NRG ENERGY SERVICES. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 191.17(a),  192.615(b)(2),  192.616(a),  192.616(b),  192.616(c),  192.616(d),  192.616(e),  192.616(f),  192.616(g),  192.707(d)(1),  192.707(d)(2),  192.743(a),  192.743(b),  192.805. The case was opened on 2014-10-29 and is reported as closed as of 2014-10-29. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520140001W_warning letter_10292014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520140001W/520140001W_warning%20letter_10292014.pdf\n\n520140001W_warning letter_10292014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520140001W/520140001W_warning%20letter_10292014_text.pdf\n\n520140001W_warning letter_10292014_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nOctober 29, 2014\nMr. Mitchell M. Samuelian\nNRG Energy Services\n100302 Yates Well Road\nNipton, CA 92364\nCPF 5-2014-0001W\nDear Mr. Samuelian:\nOn October 29-31, 2013, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected NRG\nEnergy Services’ pipeline facilities in Nipton, California.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the\nprobable violations are:\n1. §192.743 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Capacity of relief devices\n(a) Pressure relief devices at pressure limiting stations and pressure regulating\nstations must have sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to which they are\nconnected. Except as provided in §192.739(b), the capacity must be consistent with\nthe pressure limits of §192.201(a). This capacity must be determined at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, by testing the devices in\nplace or by review and calculations\n(b) If review and calculations are used to determine if a device has sufficient\ncapacity, the calculated capacity must be compared with the rated or experimentally\ndetermined relieving capacity of the device for the conditions under which it\n\n\n\noperates. After the initial calculations, subsequent calculations need not be made if\nthe annual review documents those parameters have not changed to cause the rated\nor experimentally determined relieving capacity to be insufficient.\nOne Pressure Relief Valve (PRV) exists at the beginning of NRG Energy Services’ (NRG) 6-\ninch diameter pipeline at Kern River’s tie-in. This PRV is under Kern River's control and Kern\nRiver does not provide the annual inspection records of this device to NRG. NRG has a PRV at\nthe end of each 4-inch diameter lateral pipeline to each unit. NRG could not provide capacity\ncalculations for each of the 4-inch diameter lateral pipeline PRV’s showing sufficient capacity to\nprotect the facilities of which they are connected to.\nNRG must provide capacity calculations for the 4-inch diameter lateral pipeline PRV’s or\ncomplete the installation of a pressure sensitive shut-off valve on the 6-inch diameter pipeline.\n2. §192.805 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program shall\ninclude provisions to:\n(a) Identify covered tasks;\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are\nqualified;\n(c) Allow individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this subpart to perform a\ncovered task if directed and observed by an individual that is qualified;\n(d) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe that the individual’s\nperformance of a covered task contributed to an incident as defined in Part 191;\n(e) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe that the individual is\nno longer qualified to perform a covered task;\n(f) Communicate changes that affect covered tasks to individuals performing those\ncovered tasks; and\n(g) Identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which evaluation of the\nindividual’s qualifications is needed.\n(h) After December 16, 2004, provide training, as appropriate, to ensure that\nindividuals performing covered tasks have the necessary knowledge and skills to\nperform the tasks in a manner that ensures the safe operation of pipeline facilities;\nand\n(i) After December 16, 2004, notify the Administrator or a state agency\nparticipating under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 if the operator significantly modifies the\nprogram after the Administrator or state agency has verified that it complies with\nthis section.\nNRG Energy Services (NRG) did not have a written Operator Qualification (OQ) Program of its\nown at the time of this inspection. NRG must have an OQ Plan in accordance with §192.805.\n\n\n\nNRG contracts maintenance to Energy Maintenance Services (EMS) who provides individuals to\nperform covered tasks on behalf of NRG. EMS is using its generic OQ plan to qualify its\nemployees.\n3. §192.615 Emergency plans.\n(b) Each operator shall:\n(2) Train the appropriate operating personnel to assure that they are\nknowledgeable of the emergency procedures and verify that the training is effective.\nNRG did not train its appropriate personnel to assure that they are knowledgeable of the\nemergency procedures and verify that the training was effective in accordance with\n§192.615(b)(2).\n4. §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 and\nimplement a written continuing public education program that follows the guidance\nprovided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended Practice (RP)\n1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7).\n(b) The operator's program must follow the general program recommendations of\nAPI RP 1162 and assess the unique attributes and characteristics of the operator's\npipeline and facilities.\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\nnot necessary for safety.\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 gas pipeline\nfacility;\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 gas pipeline release;\nand\n(5) Procedures for reporting such an event.\n(e) The program must include activities to advise affected municipalities, school\ndistricts, businesses, and residents of pipeline facility locations.\n(f) The program and the media used must be as comprehensive as necessary to\nreach all areas in which the operator transports gas.\n\n\n\n(g) The program must be conducted in English and in other languages commonly\nunderstood by a significant number and concentration of the non-English speaking\npopulation in the operator's area.\nNRG did not provide records identifying its four affected stakeholder audience groups as\nrequired by API RP 1162.\n5. 192.707 Line markers for mains and transmission lines\n(d) Marker warning. The following must be written legibly on a background of\nsharply contrasting color on each line marker:\n(1) The word \"Warning,\" \"Caution,\" or \"Danger\" followed by the words \"Gas (or\nname of gas transported) Pipeline\" all of which, except for markers in heavily\ndeveloped urban areas, must be in letters at least 1 inch (25 millimeters) high\nwith ¼ inch (6.4 millimeters) stroke.\n(2) The name of the operator and telephone number (including area code) where\nthe operator can be reached at all times.\nThe installed line markers do not identify NRG as the operator. All line markers need to show\nthe operator’s name and telephone number (including area code) where the operator can be\nreached at all times.\n6. 191.17 Transmission systems, gathering systems, and liquefied natural gas facilities.\nAnnual report.\n(a) Transmission or Gathering. Each operator of a transmission or a gathering\npipeline system must submit an annual report for that system on DOT Form\nPHMSA 7100.2.1. This report must be submitted each year, not later than March\n15, for the preceding calendar year, except that for the 2010 reporting year the\nreport must be submitted by June 15, 2011.\nNRG filed its initial annual report on September 24, 2013 and a supplemental report on October\n17, 2013. The reports show the 6-inch diameter pipeline from the Kern River pipeline and one 4-\ninch diameter lateral pipeline to Unit 1. The reports were missing the two 4-inch diameter lateral\npipelines going to Units 2 and 3.\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000\nper violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of\nviolations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not\nexceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a\nrelated series of violations.\nWe have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case, and have\ndecided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this\ntime. We advise you to correct the items identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in\nNRG Energy Services being subject to additional enforcement action.\n\n\n\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer\nCPF 5-2014-0001W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement\naction is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your\nresponsive 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\nthe redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 H. Monfared (#144828)","truncated":false,"body_characters":10630}