{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520151008","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":"2015-07-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.605(a), 192.605(b)(1), 192.616(a), 192.616(d)(3), 192.625(a), 192.625(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520151008.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520151008.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520151008","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520151008","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.605(a),  192.605(b)(1),  192.616(a),  192.616(d)(3),  192.625(a),  192.625(b). The case was opened on 2015-07-28 and is reported as closed as of 2017-06-16. Proposed civil penalty: $162,700. Assessed civil penalty: $0. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520151008_Final Order_06162017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520151008/520151008_Final%20Order_06162017.pdf\n\n520151008_Final Order_06162017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520151008/520151008_Final%20Order_06162017_text.pdf\n\n520151008_NOPV PCP PCO_07282015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520151008/520151008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_07282015.pdf\n\n520151008_NOPV PCP PCO_07282015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520151008/520151008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_07282015_text.pdf\n\n520151008_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing_09032015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520151008/520151008_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing_09032015.pdf\n\n520151008_Final Order_06162017_text.pdf\n\nJune 16, 2017\nMr. Tom Martin\nPresident, Natural Gas Pipelines Group\nKinder Morgan, Inc.\n1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000\nHouston, Texas 77002\nRe: CPF No. 5-2015-1008\nDear Mr. Martin:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the\nallegations of violation against El Paso Natural Gas Co., LLC, a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan,\nInc. This case is now closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the\ndate of mailing as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. James Curry, Babst Calland, Counsel, El Paso Natural Gas Co., LLC\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 Co., LLC, a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc., )\n)\nRespondent. )\n___________________________________ )\n) CPF No. 5-2015-1008\nFINAL ORDER\nOn June 18-26, 2014, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of El Paso Natural\nGas Co., LLC (EPNG or Respondent), in Tucson and Phoenix, Arizona. EPNG is an interstate\ngas transmission pipeline system with approximately 1,360 miles of pipeline in the Tucson area\n(96 miles in Class 3 locations) and 860 miles of pipeline in the Phoenix area.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated July 28, 2015, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that EPNG had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.616, 192.625 and 192.605\nand proposed assessing a total civil penalty of $162,700 for the alleged violations. The Notice\nalso proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nEPNG responded to the Notice by letter dated September 3, 2016 (Response). EPNG contested\nall three of the allegations and requested a hearing. By letter dated January 22, 2016, EPNG\nsubmitted a pre-hearing brief with exhibits for the record and a motion to require the production\nof penalty-related documents.2 A hearing was subsequently held on February 3, 2016, in\nLakewood, Colorado, as supplemented by a teleconference on February 28, 2016. At the\nhearing, which was transcribed, Respondent and OPS were represented by counsel. After the\nhearing, Respondent provided a post-hearing statement for the record, by letter dated March 18,\n2016 (Closing), and OPS submitted a recommendation dated May 6, 2016. On June 7, 2016,\nEPNG submitted a reply to OPS’s May 6, 2016 recommendation, and on July 5, 2016, OPS\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (July 28, 2015) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n2 The disposition of this motion to require the production of penalty-related documents was deferred until the\nissuance of this Final Order. Because this Final Order withdraws all three allegations of violation and does not\nassess any civil penalties, this motion became moot.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-1008\nPage 2\nsubmitted a response to EPNG’s reply. On July 27, 2016, EPNG filed a motion to strike OPS’s\nJuly 5, 2016 response.\nEPNG MOTION TO STRIKE\nFollowing EPNG’s submission of its reply to OPS’s May 6, 2016 recommendation, on June 10,\n2016, OPS requested an opportunity to respond to the reply. On June 14, 2016, the Presiding\nOfficial denied OPS’s request except as to certain limited issues as follows:\nTo the extent PHMSA’s Western Region is requesting an opportunity to address\nthe arguments raised by EPNG in this case up to and including its March 18, 2016\npost-hearing filings, in the absence of good cause as to why Western Region did\nnot address them in its May 6, 2016 Region Recommendation, your request is\ndenied except that Western Region may submit an explanation of its views on the\ndegree to which EPNG’s post-hearing filings or other materials demonstrate\ncompletion, in whole or in part, of any of the terms of the Proposed Compliance\nOrder and such submission must be received not later than close of business on July\n14, 2016. Note that such submission does not indicate whether any finding of\nviolation will or will not be made.\nTo the extent Western Region is requesting an opportunity to respond to EPNG’s\nJune 7, 2016 Reply to the Region Recommendation (Reply), your request is denied\nexcept to the extent that any new arguments were raised by EPNG in its Reply. If\nyou have reason to believe this is the case, you may submit a response that is limited\nto the new argument(s) not later than the due date for your response on the Proposed\nCompliance Order items above. Be advised that counsel for the operator will be\nprovided with the opportunity to object on the issue of whether any of EPNG’s\narguments in its Reply are new arguments and if such objection is made and\nsustained your response may be excluded from the record.\nAs EPNG correctly noted in its Motion to Strike, OPS did not provide good cause in its July 5,\n2016 response for why it did not utilize its May 6, 2016 recommendation to address the\narguments raised by EPNG in this case up to and including EPNG’s March 18, 2016 post-\nhearing filings. Moreover, OPS did not establish that any of the arguments raised by EPNG in\nits June 7, 2016 response were new arguments that OPS did not yet have an opportunity to\nrespond. Accordingly, I am striking OPS’s July 5, 2016 response from the record.\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATIONS\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616, which states in\nrelevant part:\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-1008\nPage 3\n§ 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\nguidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended\nPractice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see §192.7).\n(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) …\n(3) Physical indications that such a release may have occurred.\nThe guidance in API 1162 states: “An operator should select the optimum\ncombination of message, delivery method, and frequency that meets the needs\nof the intended audience”3 and “Information should address how to recognize a\npipeline leak through the senses of sight, unusual sound, and smell and describe\nany associated dangers as appropriate to the product type.”4\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(d)(3) by failing to develop and\nimplement a written continuing public education program that followed the guidance in API\nRecommended Practice 1162. Specifically, the Notice alleged that EPNG's written public\nawareness messages given to the affected public failed to include relevant information about\nphysical indications that a release may have occurred.5\nOPS stated that Respondent was transporting a type of gas that has an odor that may vary,\ndepending on which wells are used as a gas source, and could have different odors besides the\nnormal pungent smell of mercaptan and petroleum odors.6 Respondent’s public awareness\nmailer that was provided to the affected public stated only that “either a petroleum or a pungent\nodor such as sulfur (rotten egg) may be present if a release of natural gas has occurred.”7\nOPS claimed that Respondent was aware of the broader range of odors associated with its gas, as\nshown by written public awareness messages to excavators and emergency response officials\nstating that physical indications of a release would include the odor of petroleum, mercaptan\n(rotten egg), or a fragrant odor.8 In contrast, the public awareness mailer for the affected public\n3 Public Awareness Programs, API Recommended Practice 1162, 1st Ed. (API Recommended Practice 1162), (Dec.\n2003), at Section 4, Message Content.\n4 Id., at Section 4.3.2, How to Recognize a Pipeline Leak.\n5 Notice, at 2.\n6 Id.\n7 Id.\n8 Id.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-1008\nPage 4\ndid not include the same physical indications of a release of natural gas.9 In its Response and at\nthe hearing, Respondent argued that OPS had not met its burden of proof that Respondent’s\npublic mailer was inconsistent with 49 C.F.R. § 192.616 and API RP 1162.10\nRespondent explained that the different mailers were targeted at different audiences.11 The\nmailer for the affected public is “targeted to the public that live close to natural gas pipelines,\nwhereas the mailer for excavators and emergency responders is for a broader array of natural gas,\nhazardous liquids and carbon dioxide pipelines.”12 Respondent stated that “leaks from hazardous\nliquid and carbon dioxide pipelines may have a broader range of potential odors than natural gas\npipelines, so the mailer that covers this broader array of pipelines has a broader description of\nodors.”13\nFurther, Respondent argued that it had complied with the provisions of API Recommended\nPractice 1162. API Recommended Practice 1162 sets out a series of performance-based\nmeasures that allow an operator to “select the optimum combination of message, delivery\nmethod, and frequency that meets the needs of the intended audience.”14 The guidance contained\nin Appendix C of API Recommended Practice 1162 provides that information on how to\nrecognize a pipeline leak can include “By Smell—What to Smell for…”15 Therefore,\nRespondent stated that the API standards allowed it flexibility in how it conveyed its message.16\nRespondent replied that the word “pungent is broad enough for people to recognize, if they smell\nsomething, to call and report it.”17\nRespondent argued that its public mailer accurately described “the odor of gas on the EPNG\nsystem.”18 Because perceptions of odor are subjective and “may differ from person to person,”\nRespondent’s public mailer used a description that is sufficiently inclusive to capture a variety of\nsmells.19 The mailer uses the word “pungent,” which refers to any strong smell and provides an\nexample of one pungent odor “such as sulfur (rotten eggs).”20\n9 Id.\n10 Response, at 10-11\n.\n11 Id., at 9; Closing, at 20-21.\n12 Response, at 9.\n13 Id.\n14 API Recommended Practice 1162, at Section 4; Response, at 7.\n15 API Recommended Practice 1162, at C.3.2; Response, at 7.\n16 Response, at 10.\n17 Hearing Transcript, Vol I. (Transcript), (Feb. 3, 2016) (on file with PHMSA), at 138-39.\n18 Response, at 10.\n19 Id.\n20 Id., Ex. 3 (Kinder Morgan, Our Pipelines in Your Community), at 3; Closing, at 18; Transcript, at 138-39.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-1008\nPage 5\nOPS responded that Respondent “failed to develop and implement a written continuing public\neducation program that followed the guidance in API Recommended Practice 1162.\n[Respondent’s] written public awareness messages given to the affected public failed to include\nrelevant information about physical indications that a release may have occurred.”21 When asked\nby the Presiding Official about why the differences in the mailers were material, OPS responded\nthat the public mailer did not have enough detail about types of odors.22\nOperators that rely on natural odors in the gas they transport rather than on odorant additives\nsuch as mercaptan are obligated to ensure their public education materials will facilitate\ndetection of those odors by the general public. It is indisputable that EPNG’s public flyer could\nhave been more specific in describing the potential smells of its gas, as was the case in its other\nflyers. It is in both the operator and public interest that the public have detailed information to\nidentify a potential pipeline safety issue. An operator’s public mailer should alert the public in\nthe most descriptive terms available about how to identify a gas leak by smell. While EPNG’s\npublic flyer was not as specific as its other flyers, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that\nthe public flyer did not include relevant information about physical indications of released gas\nthat would warn the public of such a release. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence,\nI find that OPS did not demonstrate that a violation occurred in this instance and I hereby order\nthat Item 1 be withdrawn.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625, which states:\n§ 192.625 Odorization of gas.\n(a) A combustible gas in a distribution line must contain a natural odorant or\nbe odorized so that at a concentration in air of one-fifth of the lower explosive\nlimit, the gas is readily detectable by a person with a normal sense of smell.\n(b) After December 31, 1976, a combustible gas in a transmission line in a\nClass 3 or Class 4 location must comply with the requirements of paragraph (a)\nof this section unless:\n(1) At least 50 percent of the length of the line downstream from that location\nis in a Class 1 or Class 2 location;\n(2) The line transports gas to any of the following facilities which received\ngas without an odorant from that line before May 5, 1975;\n(i) An underground storage field;\n(ii) A gas processing plant;\n(iii) A gas dehydration plant; or\n(iv) An industrial plant using gas in a process where the presence of an\nodorant:\n(A) Makes the end product unfit for the purpose for which it is intended;\n(B) Reduces the activity of a catalyst; or\n(C) Reduces the percentage completion of a chemical reaction;\n(1) …\n21 Transcript, at 110-11.\n22 Id., at 111-12.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-1008\nPage 6\n(3) In the case of a lateral line which transports gas to a distribution center,\nat least 50 percent of the length of that line is in a Class 1 or Class 2 location; or\n(4) The combustible gas is hydrogen intended for use as a feedstock in a\nmanufacturing process.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625 by failing to maintain odorized\ngas in its pipelines as required by paragraphs (a) and (b). Specifically, the Notice alleged that\ntwo of EPNG's gas lines, numbered 1015 and 2074, located in the greater Tucson area have over\n50 percent of the pipeline in Class 3 locations. Both of these lines were not odorized according\nto the requirements of paragraph (a).23\nOn June 11, 2014, a construction crew from Southwest Gas Corporation near Willcox, Arizona,\nwhich is downstream from EPNG's transmission lines, reported a lack of odorization.\nConsequently, the Cities of Safford and Benson and Graham County Utilities reported\nunodorized or low-level odorization.24\nIn its Response and at the hearing, Respondent stated that OPS “has not met its burden of\nproving that EPNG violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625.”25 Respondent claimed that the evidence in\nthe record does not demonstrate that either of these pipelines had inadequate levels of odorant at\nthe time of the alleged violation on June 11, 2014.26 Respondent noted, as with Item 1, the\nmajority of the odorometer readings that OPS relied upon were not from Respondent’s\ntransmission lines or meters and Respondent had many questions concerning their reliability.27\nRespondent stated that it was unable to correlate the “vast majority” of the local distributing\ncompany (LDC) readings to actual locations on or near Respondent’s transmission pipelines.28\nAt the few test-point locations that Respondent was able to correlate as on or near its facilities,\nRespondent found that its transmission pipelines did not require odorization.29 None of the LDC\nrecords that OPS included with the Violation Report listed test locations that Respondent was\nable to correlate to locations on Lines 1015 or 2074.30 Further, on June 19, 2014, Respondent\nperformed odorant tests on Lines 1015 and 2074 and found that odorization levels on both were\ncompliant with § 192.625(a).31\n23 Notice, at 3.\n24 Id.\n25 Response, at 14.\n26 Id., at 15.\n27 Id., at 17; Transcript, at 50-52; Closing, at 9.\n28 Response, at 15; Closing, at 9-11.\n29 Response, at 15.\n30 Id.\n31 Id.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-1008\nPage 7\nRespondent also noted that none of its transmission lines that serve the Cities of Benson, Safford,\nor Wilcox, or Graham County Utilities were required to be odorized at or near these\nmunicipalities.32\nRespondent also argued that even if its lines were not properly odorized, following PHMSA\nprecedent, a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(a) is not an automatic violation if the operator\ndemonstrates that it took “prompt action” on discovery to increase odorant levels to acceptable\nlimits.33 Contrary to OPS’s allegation that “[o]nce the odorant issue became known EPNG failed\nto immediately contact the distribution Operators,”34 Respondent stated that it took prompt\naction to correct any odorization concerns raised by LDC customers. On June 12, 2014, a\ncustomer alerted Respondent to a possible odorization issue.35 On June 13, 2014, Respondent\npersonnel initiated a series of phone calls notifying most customers of the potential odorant\nissues, as well as posting a statement on its Electronic Bulletin Board.36 On June 14, 2014,\nRespondent notified customers that injection of additional odorant into certain lines would occur.\nOn June 19, 2014, Respondent technicians took odor readings at each of Respondent’s lateral\nlines that are required to be odorized.37 The readings demonstrated that all lateral lines were\nodorized at a level well within the range required for compliance with 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(a).38\nAt the hearing, OPS requested that Respondent provide historical records, and stated that it\nwould reexamine the evidence presented.39 Respondent provided both historical and updated\ndata showing historical odor testing and odor levels at the pipeline at issue.40 Respondent\nsupplemented its evidence with additional odorization test records that showed readings on June\n12, 2014, and June 14, 2014, at meter numbers 30148 and 30149, which are located directly on\nLine 1015, as well as June 13, 2014 and June 14, 2014 readings at meter 20467, directly on Line\n1015. These records also show readings on June 12, 2014, in the immediate proximity of Lines\n1015 and 2074, at meter numbers 30931 and 20537. The records also included readings on June\n17, 2014, at meter 31558 on Line 1015.41\n32 Transcript, at 16.\n33 PHMSA Letter of Interpretation to Columbia Gas Distribution Companies, at 2, PI-93-009; PHMSA, Operations\n& Maintenance Enforcement Guidance: Part 192 Subparts L and M, at 84 (Dec. 7, 2015); Transcript 94-99; Closing,\nat 14-15.\n34 Violation Report, at 21; Response, at 19.\n35 Response, at 15.\n36 Id., Exs. 7 and 12.\n37 Id., Ex. 10.\n38 Id.; Response, at 19.\n39 Transcript, at 60; Closing, at 11-12.\n40 Closing, at 9-12; Response Exs. 9-10 (“Odorometer Readings from Meters Near Phoenix and Tucson, Odorometer\nCertificates of Calibration, and Operator Qualification Records,” and “EPNG Odorometer Readings of Lateral\nPipelines” (June 19, 2014)) both attached as Exhibit 11 and 10; Closing, Ex. C (“Odorization Test Readings Mid-\nJune 2014”).\n41 Closing, Ex. C.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-1008\nPage 8\nRespondent noted that its “historical and mid-June 2014 readings are the only evidence in the\ncase file regarding actual odorant levels on EPNG’s pipelines and they show that they had\ncompliant levels of odorant.”42 Respondent pointed out that OPS had offered no evidence of\nodor levels prior to June 12, 2014, despite stating in the hearing that the basis for the alleged\nviolation was that “it was prior to June 12th that the odorant was not being maintained.”43 It\nstated that in light of its evidence, OPS could not “prevail simply by offering a series of cryptic\nLDC odorization records that are not correlated to EPNG’s system, and then failing to defend\nthose records at the Hearing.”44\nProper odorization of pipelines that are required to be odorized is a key part of pipeline safety.\nOperators are obligated to conduct sufficient monitoring at appropriate locations to ensure that if\nodorant levels fall below adequate levels, additional odorant is injected. Although OPS had\nample opportunity to review and assess the extensive records provided by Respondent in its\nhearing exhibits, OPS did not opine on the historical records or updated data in its\nrecommendation. While the records produced to the OPS inspector at the time of the inspection\nwere arguably incomplete and likely contributed to this becoming an NOPV item, OPS did not\nallege a failure to maintain full records. Rather OPS alleged that lines were not odorized and in\nthis instance was unable to carry its burden of proving the allegation.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, in the absence of countervailing opinion or\nanalysis, I find that OPS has failed to demonstrate that there was a violation in this instance.\nBased upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 2 be withdrawn.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual\nof written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for\nemergency response. For transmission lines, the manual must also include\nprocedures for handling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and\nupdated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each\ncalendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system\ncommence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a)\nof this section must include procedures for the following, if applicable, to provide\nsafety during maintenance and operations.\n(1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance with each\nof the requirements of this subpart and subpart M of this part.\n42 Id., at 13.\n43 Closing, at 16; Transcript, at 108.\n44 Closing, at 11.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-1008\nPage 9\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to prepare and\nfollow a procedure that would ensure operation and maintenance of the pipeline in accordance\nwith the requirements of § 192.625, “Odorization of Gas.” Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nEPNG's written procedure (1026 \"Natural Gas Odorization\") stated that the gas must be\ndetectable at one-fifth of the lower explosive level (LEL); however, it did not specify the actual\nLEL percentage. Section 192.625 states: “A combustible gas in a distribution line must contain a\nnatural odorant or be odorized so that at a concentration in air of one-fifth of the lower explosive\nlimit, the gas is readily detectable by a person with a normal sense of smell.” Without specifying\nthe LEL, there is not sufficient information for field personnel to determine if the gas is\nadequately odorized.45\nIn its Response and at the hearing, Respondent stated that OPS had not satisfied its burden of\nproof to establish that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(b)(1).46 EPNG acknowledged\nthat its O&M Procedure 1026 did not specify an LEL percentage, but pointed out that the\npipeline safety regulations did not require that the percentage be included in the procedures.47\nRespondent further explained that its practice is to direct its field personnel to use an LEL of five\npercent for purposes of odor readings on its system.48 As part of its operator qualification\nprocess, Respondent provides training to its field technicians on the proper LEL percentage to\nutilize on its system and its training documentation provides that “[o]dorized gas must contain an\nodorant in an amount that will be readily detectable in concentrations of gas in air of 1/5 the\nlower explosive limit of 5% which is 1% gas in air.”49\nRespondent rejected OPS’s claim that it had violated § 192.605 because it “does not have a\nconsistent number that can be used as the LEL” based on different LEL percentages listed in\ndifferent documents.50 OPS relied on a written procedure for gas detection instruments and a\npresentation to first responders.51 However, Respondent stated that the referenced documents\ndid not demonstrate a violation because they do not “purport to provide the LEL percentage for\npurposes of odorization testing.”52 In fact, the presentation to first responders is a third-party\n45 Notice, at 4.\n46 Response, at 21.\n47 Id., Respondent’s O&M Procedures are prepared by its parent company, Kinder Morgan. Kinder Morgan has\nprepared a unified set of O&M procedures for its numerous gas pipelines systems, each with varying chemical\nmakeups. The Kinder Morgan odorization procedure does not include a specific LEL percentage because of this\nvariability across systems. Id.\n48 Id., at 22; Closing, at 7.\n49 Response at 22; Response Ex. 14 (Kinder Morgan, Measurement Standards Training, Test Gas Odorant Level,\nOdorization Training PowerPoint Slides), at slide 25. EPNG has also provided affidavits from its Measurement\nTechnicians confirming that EPNG has instructed them to use a 5 percent LEL for purposes of odorant\nmeasurements through on-the-job training. Response, Ex. 15 (Affidavits of Field Technicians).\n50 Response, at 22-23; Violation Report, at 30.\n51 Violation Report, at 30; Transcript 20-21.\n52 Response, at 22-23; Closing, at 5.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-1008\nPage 10\ntraining contractor’s presentation designed for third-party responders who are not Respondent\nemployees.53\nIn response to OPS’s concern that the O&M procedures did not clearly reference Respondent’s\ntraining materials, Respondent replied that its procedures did reference on-the-job training. This\ntraining provides guidance to employees who take the readings and use them “as a starting point\nfor figuring out what the lower explosive limit is for a section of pipe.”54 Respondent stated that\nits “written procedures in conjunction with qualification training for measurement technicians,\nallows field personnel to determine that the gas is adequately odorized in compliance with\n49 C.F.R. § 192.625.”55 Respondent, however, was not persuasive on this point. If training\nmaterials are to constitute procedures or supplement them, the operator has the burden of making\nthat explicit in the O&M manual.\nThe procedural manual is a key part of ensuring that operator personnel have clear instructions\non how to detect gas. Without proper odorization levels, operator personnel and the public are\npotentially placed in danger. Though EPNG’s procedures correctly state that gas must be\ndetectable at one-fifth of the LEL, failing to list a specific LEL may well complicate the ability\nof field personnel to determine appropriate odorization levels. However, when asked at the\nhearing whether there was an explicit requirement in § 192.605 that the LEL percentage be listed\nin the O&M, OPS replied that “it doesn't say anything, specifically, about providing the LEL.”56\nWhile it appears that it would be strongly advisable for EPNG to amend its procedures and\nspecify the LEL (often accomplished by issuance of a Notice of Amendment), that does not\nequate to failure to comply with the applicable code language which could have required that\nLEL be specified but does not.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that OPS has failed to demonstrate that\nthere was a violation in this instance. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 3 be\nwithdrawn.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nJune 16, 2017\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n53 Response, at 23; Transcript 20-21; Closing, at 5.\n54 Transcript, at 34.\n55 Closing, at 7.\n56 Transcript, at 17.\n\n520151008_NOPV PCP PCO_07282015_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJuly 28, 2015\nMr. Gary Buchler\nVice President, Engineering and Operations\nEl Paso Natural Gas Division\nKinder Morgan, Inc.\n1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000\nHouston, TX 77002-5089\nCPF 5-2015-1008\nDear Mr. Buchler:\nOn June 18-26, 2014, a representative of the Arizona Corporation Commission’s Pipeline\nSafety Section and a representative from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49\nCode of Federal Regulations, inspected the El Paso Natural Gas (EPNG) Tucson Complex\nand Phoenix Complex gas transmission pipeline systems in Tucson and Phoenix, Arizona.\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\nthe probable violations are:\n\n\n\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 and\nimplement a written continuing public education program that follows the\nguidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended\nPractice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7).\n(d) The operator's program must specifically include provisions to educate the\npublic, appropriate government organizations, and persons engaged in\nexcavation related activities on:\n(3) Physical indications that such a release may have occurred;\nEPNG failed to develop and implement a written continuing public education program that\nfollowed the guidance in API RP 1162. EPNG’s written public awareness messages given to\nthe affected public failed to include relevant information about physical indications that a\nrelease may have occurred.\nThe guidance in API 1162 states: “An operator should select the optimum combination of\nmessage, delivery method, and frequency that meets the needs of the intended audience”\n(Section 4, Message Content) and “Information should address how to recognize a pipeline\nleak through the senses of sight, unusual sound, and smell and describe any associated\ndangers as appropriate to the product type” (Section 4.3.2, How to Recognize a Pipeline\nLeak).\nEPNG’s pipeline system transported gas with natural aromatic hydrocarbons. This type of gas\nhas an odor that may vary depending on which wells are used as a gas source and could have\ndifferent odors besides the normal pungent smell of mercaptan and petroleum odors. For that\nreason, EPNG provided written public awareness messages to excavators and emergency\nresponse officials stating that physical indications of a release would include the odor of\npetroleum, mercaptan (rotten egg), or a fragrant odor. However, EPNG’s public awareness\nmailer that was provided to the affected public stated only that either a petroleum or a pungent\nodor such as sulfur (rotten egg) may be present if a release of natural gas has occurred.\nThe public awareness mailer for the affected public did not include all known physical\nindications of a release of natural gas.\n2. 192.625 Odorization of gas.\n(a) A combustible gas in a distribution line must contain a natural odorant or be\nodorized so that at a concentration in air of one-fifth of the lower explosive limit,\nthe gas is readily detectable by a person with a normal sense of smell.\n\n\n\n(b) After December 31, 1976, a combustible gas in a transmission line in a Class\n3 or Class 4 location must comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this\nsection unless:\n(1) At least 50 percent of the length of the line downstream from that location is\nin a Class 1 or Class 2 location;\n(2) The line transports gas to any of the following facilities which received gas\nwithout an odorant from that line before May 5, 1975:\n(i) An underground storage field;\n(ii) A gas processing plant;\n(iii) A gas dehydration plant; or\n(iv) An industrial plant using gas in a process where the presence of an odorant:\n(A) Makes the end product unfit for the purpose for which it is intended;\n(B) Reduces the activity of a catalyst; or\n(C) Reduces the percentage completion of a chemical reaction\n(3) In the case of a lateral line which transports gas to a distribution center, at\nleast 50 percent of the length of that line is in a Class 1 or Class 2 location.; or\n(4) The combustible gas is hydrogen intended for use as a feedstock in a\nmanufacturing process.\nEPNG did not maintain odorized gas in its pipelines as required by paragraphs (a) and (b).\nTwo of EPNG’s gas lines, numbered 1015 and 2074, located in the greater Tucson area have\nover 50% of the pipeline in Class 3 locations. Both of these lines were not odorized\naccording to the requirements of paragraph (a).\nThe lack of detectable odorant was first observed by a construction crew from Southwest Gas\nCorporation near Willcox, Arizona, which is downstream downstream from EPNG’s\ntransmission lines, on June 11, 2014. Southwest Gas alerted other distribution operators on\nJune 12, 2014. The Cities of Safford and Benson and Graham County Utilities reported\nunodorized or low level odorization as well. Distribution operators downstream from EPNG’s\ntransmission lines provided odorant sniff test and odorometer records that showed insufficient\nodorization of gas throughout the Southeast region of Arizona.\n3. 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual\nof written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and\nfor emergency response . . . .\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of\nthis section must include procedures for the following, if applicable, to provide\nsafety during maintenance and operations.\n(1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance with each of\nthe requirements of this subpart and subpart M of this part.\n\n\n\nEPNG failed to prepare and follow a procedure that would ensure operation and maintenance\nof the pipeline in accordance with the requirements of § 192.625, Odorization of Gas.\nSection 192.625 states “A combustible gas in a distribution line must contain a natural\nodorant or be odorized so that at a concentration in air of one-fifth of the lower explosive\nlimit, the gas is readily detectable by a person with a normal sense of smell.” EPNG’s written\nprocedure (1026 “Natural Gas Odorization”) stated that the gas must be detectable at 1/5 of\nthe LEL, however, it did not specify the actual LEL percentage. Without specifying the LEL,\nthere is not sufficient information for field personnel to determine if the gas is adequately\nodorized.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a\nrelated series of violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum\npenalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to\nexceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the\ncircumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violations and\nhas recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $162,700 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $50,400\n2 $61,900\n3 $50,400\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 1, 2, and 3 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to El Paso\nNatural Gas Company. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed\nand made a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline\nOperators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response\noptions. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly\navailable. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted\ninformation qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond\nwithin 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the\nallegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to\nfind facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\n\n\n\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2015-1008 and for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\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 C. Ishikawa (#147016)\nArizona Corporation Commission - Pipeline Safety Section\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 a Compliance\nOrder incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of El Paso\nNatural Gas Company with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. 4. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to EPNG’s failure to give\nthe affected public the same information about smells of natural gas that is\nprovided to excavator and emergency response officials, EPNG must amend its\nwritten public awareness messages to the affected public. Written public\nawareness materials must be amended and delivered to the general public\nlocated in Southern Arizona within ninety (90) days following receipt of this\nfinal order.\nIn regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to EPNG’s failure to\nmaintain odorized gas in its South System, EPNG must evaluate their entire\nnatural gas system in Southern A","truncated":true,"body_characters":41226}