# EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

520151008_Final Order_06162017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520151008/520151008_Final%20Order_06162017.pdf

520151008_Final Order_06162017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520151008/520151008_Final%20Order_06162017_text.pdf

520151008_NOPV PCP PCO_07282015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520151008/520151008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_07282015.pdf

520151008_NOPV PCP PCO_07282015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520151008/520151008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_07282015_text.pdf

520151008_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

520151008_Final Order_06162017_text.pdf

June 16, 2017
Mr. Tom Martin
President, Natural Gas Pipelines Group
Kinder Morgan, Inc.
1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000
Houston, Texas 77002
Re: CPF No. 5-2015-1008
Dear Mr. Martin:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the
allegations of violation against El Paso Natural Gas Co., LLC, a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan,
Inc. This case is now closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the
date of mailing as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. James Curry, Babst Calland, Counsel, El Paso Natural Gas Co., LLC
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
)
)
El Paso Natural Gas Co., LLC, a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc., )
)
Respondent. )
___________________________________ )
) CPF No. 5-2015-1008
FINAL ORDER
On June 18-26, 2014, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of El Paso Natural
Gas Co., LLC (EPNG or Respondent), in Tucson and Phoenix, Arizona. EPNG is an interstate
gas transmission pipeline system with approximately 1,360 miles of pipeline in the Tucson area
(96 miles in Class 3 locations) and 860 miles of pipeline in the Phoenix area.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated July 28, 2015, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the
Notice proposed finding that EPNG had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.616, 192.625 and 192.605
and proposed assessing a total civil penalty of $162,700 for the alleged violations. The Notice
also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
EPNG responded to the Notice by letter dated September 3, 2016 (Response). EPNG contested
all three of the allegations and requested a hearing. By letter dated January 22, 2016, EPNG
submitted a pre-hearing brief with exhibits for the record and a motion to require the production
of penalty-related documents.2 A hearing was subsequently held on February 3, 2016, in
Lakewood, Colorado, as supplemented by a teleconference on February 28, 2016. At the
hearing, which was transcribed, Respondent and OPS were represented by counsel. After the
hearing, Respondent provided a post-hearing statement for the record, by letter dated March 18,
2016 (Closing), and OPS submitted a recommendation dated May 6, 2016. On June 7, 2016,
EPNG submitted a reply to OPS’s May 6, 2016 recommendation, and on July 5, 2016, OPS
1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (July 28, 2015) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.
2 The disposition of this motion to require the production of penalty-related documents was deferred until the
issuance of this Final Order. Because this Final Order withdraws all three allegations of violation and does not
assess any civil penalties, this motion became moot.



CPF No. 5-2015-1008
Page 2
submitted a response to EPNG’s reply. On July 27, 2016, EPNG filed a motion to strike OPS’s
July 5, 2016 response.
EPNG MOTION TO STRIKE
Following EPNG’s submission of its reply to OPS’s May 6, 2016 recommendation, on June 10,
2016, OPS requested an opportunity to respond to the reply. On June 14, 2016, the Presiding
Official denied OPS’s request except as to certain limited issues as follows:
To the extent PHMSA’s Western Region is requesting an opportunity to address
the arguments raised by EPNG in this case up to and including its March 18, 2016
post-hearing filings, in the absence of good cause as to why Western Region did
not address them in its May 6, 2016 Region Recommendation, your request is
denied except that Western Region may submit an explanation of its views on the
degree to which EPNG’s post-hearing filings or other materials demonstrate
completion, in whole or in part, of any of the terms of the Proposed Compliance
Order and such submission must be received not later than close of business on July
14, 2016. Note that such submission does not indicate whether any finding of
violation will or will not be made.
To the extent Western Region is requesting an opportunity to respond to EPNG’s
June 7, 2016 Reply to the Region Recommendation (Reply), your request is denied
except to the extent that any new arguments were raised by EPNG in its Reply. If
you have reason to believe this is the case, you may submit a response that is limited
to the new argument(s) not later than the due date for your response on the Proposed
Compliance Order items above. Be advised that counsel for the operator will be
provided with the opportunity to object on the issue of whether any of EPNG’s
arguments in its Reply are new arguments and if such objection is made and
sustained your response may be excluded from the record.
As EPNG correctly noted in its Motion to Strike, OPS did not provide good cause in its July 5,
2016 response for why it did not utilize its May 6, 2016 recommendation to address the
arguments raised by EPNG in this case up to and including EPNG’s March 18, 2016 post-
hearing filings. Moreover, OPS did not establish that any of the arguments raised by EPNG in
its June 7, 2016 response were new arguments that OPS did not yet have an opportunity to
respond. Accordingly, I am striking OPS’s July 5, 2016 response from the record.
WITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATIONS
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616, which states in
relevant part:



CPF No. 5-2015-1008
Page 3
§ 192.616 Public awareness.
(a) Except for an operator of a master meter or petroleum gas system covered
under paragraph (j) of this section, each pipeline operator must develop and
implement a written continuing public education program that follows the
guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended
Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see §192.7).
(d) The operator's program must specifically include provisions to educate
the public, appropriate government organizations, and persons engaged in
excavation related activities on:
(1) …
(3) Physical indications that such a release may have occurred.
The guidance in API 1162 states: “An operator should select the optimum
combination of message, delivery method, and frequency that meets the needs
of the intended audience”3 and “Information should address how to recognize a
pipeline leak through the senses of sight, unusual sound, and smell and describe
any associated dangers as appropriate to the product type.”4
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(d)(3) by failing to develop and
implement a written continuing public education program that followed the guidance in API
Recommended Practice 1162. Specifically, the Notice alleged that EPNG's written public
awareness messages given to the affected public failed to include relevant information about
physical indications that a release may have occurred.5
OPS stated that Respondent was transporting a type of gas that has an odor that may vary,
depending on which wells are used as a gas source, and could have different odors besides the
normal pungent smell of mercaptan and petroleum odors.6 Respondent’s public awareness
mailer that was provided to the affected public stated only that “either a petroleum or a pungent
odor such as sulfur (rotten egg) may be present if a release of natural gas has occurred.”7
OPS claimed that Respondent was aware of the broader range of odors associated with its gas, as
shown by written public awareness messages to excavators and emergency response officials
stating that physical indications of a release would include the odor of petroleum, mercaptan
(rotten egg), or a fragrant odor.8 In contrast, the public awareness mailer for the affected public
3 Public Awareness Programs, API Recommended Practice 1162, 1st Ed. (API Recommended Practice 1162), (Dec.
2003), at Section 4, Message Content.
4 Id., at Section 4.3.2, How to Recognize a Pipeline Leak.
5 Notice, at 2.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id.



CPF No. 5-2015-1008
Page 4
did not include the same physical indications of a release of natural gas.9 In its Response and at
the hearing, Respondent argued that OPS had not met its burden of proof that Respondent’s
public mailer was inconsistent with 49 C.F.R. § 192.616 and API RP 1162.10
Respondent explained that the different mailers were targeted at different audiences.11 The
mailer for the affected public is “targeted to the public that live close to natural gas pipelines,
whereas the mailer for excavators and emergency responders is for a broader array of natural gas,
hazardous liquids and carbon dioxide pipelines.”12 Respondent stated that “leaks from hazardous
liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines may have a broader range of potential odors than natural gas
pipelines, so the mailer that covers this broader array of pipelines has a broader description of
odors.”13
Further, Respondent argued that it had complied with the provisions of API Recommended
Practice 1162. API Recommended Practice 1162 sets out a series of performance-based
measures that allow an operator to “select the optimum combination of message, delivery
method, and frequency that meets the needs of the intended audience.”14 The guidance contained
in Appendix C of API Recommended Practice 1162 provides that information on how to
recognize a pipeline leak can include “By Smell—What to Smell for…”15 Therefore,
Respondent stated that the API standards allowed it flexibility in how it conveyed its message.16
Respondent replied that the word “pungent is broad enough for people to recognize, if they smell
something, to call and report it.”17
Respondent argued that its public mailer accurately described “the odor of gas on the EPNG
system.”18 Because perceptions of odor are subjective and “may differ from person to person,”
Respondent’s public mailer used a description that is sufficiently inclusive to capture a variety of
smells.19 The mailer uses the word “pungent,” which refers to any strong smell and provides an
example of one pungent odor “such as sulfur (rotten eggs).”20
9 Id.
10 Response, at 10-11
.
11 Id., at 9; Closing, at 20-21.
12 Response, at 9.
13 Id.
14 API Recommended Practice 1162, at Section 4; Response, at 7.
15 API Recommended Practice 1162, at C.3.2; Response, at 7.
16 Response, at 10.
17 Hearing Transcript, Vol I. (Transcript), (Feb. 3, 2016) (on file with PHMSA), at 138-39.
18 Response, at 10.
19 Id.
20 Id., Ex. 3 (Kinder Morgan, Our Pipelines in Your Community), at 3; Closing, at 18; Transcript, at 138-39.



CPF No. 5-2015-1008
Page 5
OPS responded that Respondent “failed to develop and implement a written continuing public
education program that followed the guidance in API Recommended Practice 1162.
[Respondent’s] written public awareness messages given to the affected public failed to include
relevant information about physical indications that a release may have occurred.”21 When asked
by the Presiding Official about why the differences in the mailers were material, OPS responded
that the public mailer did not have enough detail about types of odors.22
Operators that rely on natural odors in the gas they transport rather than on odorant additives
such as mercaptan are obligated to ensure their public education materials will facilitate
detection of those odors by the general public. It is indisputable that EPNG’s public flyer could
have been more specific in describing the potential smells of its gas, as was the case in its other
flyers. It is in both the operator and public interest that the public have detailed information to
identify a potential pipeline safety issue. An operator’s public mailer should alert the public in
the most descriptive terms available about how to identify a gas leak by smell. While EPNG’s
public flyer was not as specific as its other flyers, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that
the public flyer did not include relevant information about physical indications of released gas
that would warn the public of such a release. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence,
I find that OPS did not demonstrate that a violation occurred in this instance and I hereby order
that Item 1 be withdrawn.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625, which states:
§ 192.625 Odorization of gas.
(a) A combustible gas in a distribution line must contain a natural odorant or
be odorized so that at a concentration in air of one-fifth of the lower explosive
limit, the gas is readily detectable by a person with a normal sense of smell.
(b) After December 31, 1976, a combustible gas in a transmission line in a
Class 3 or Class 4 location must comply with the requirements of paragraph (a)
of this section unless:
(1) At least 50 percent of the length of the line downstream from that location
is in a Class 1 or Class 2 location;
(2) The line transports gas to any of the following facilities which received
gas without an odorant from that line before May 5, 1975;
(i) An underground storage field;
(ii) A gas processing plant;
(iii) A gas dehydration plant; or
(iv) An industrial plant using gas in a process where the presence of an
odorant:
(A) Makes the end product unfit for the purpose for which it is intended;
(B) Reduces the activity of a catalyst; or
(C) Reduces the percentage completion of a chemical reaction;
(1) …
21 Transcript, at 110-11.
22 Id., at 111-12.



CPF No. 5-2015-1008
Page 6
(3) In the case of a lateral line which transports gas to a distribution center,
at least 50 percent of the length of that line is in a Class 1 or Class 2 location; or
(4) The combustible gas is hydrogen intended for use as a feedstock in a
manufacturing process.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625 by failing to maintain odorized
gas in its pipelines as required by paragraphs (a) and (b). Specifically, the Notice alleged that
two of EPNG's gas lines, numbered 1015 and 2074, located in the greater Tucson area have over
50 percent of the pipeline in Class 3 locations. Both of these lines were not odorized according
to the requirements of paragraph (a).23
On June 11, 2014, a construction crew from Southwest Gas Corporation near Willcox, Arizona,
which is downstream from EPNG's transmission lines, reported a lack of odorization.
Consequently, the Cities of Safford and Benson and Graham County Utilities reported
unodorized or low-level odorization.24
In its Response and at the hearing, Respondent stated that OPS “has not met its burden of
proving that EPNG violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625.”25 Respondent claimed that the evidence in
the record does not demonstrate that either of these pipelines had inadequate levels of odorant at
the time of the alleged violation on June 11, 2014.26 Respondent noted, as with Item 1, the
majority of the odorometer readings that OPS relied upon were not from Respondent’s
transmission lines or meters and Respondent had many questions concerning their reliability.27
Respondent stated that it was unable to correlate the “vast majority” of the local distributing
company (LDC) readings to actual locations on or near Respondent’s transmission pipelines.28
At the few test-point locations that Respondent was able to correlate as on or near its facilities,
Respondent found that its transmission pipelines did not require odorization.29 None of the LDC
records that OPS included with the Violation Report listed test locations that Respondent was
able to correlate to locations on Lines 1015 or 2074.30 Further, on June 19, 2014, Respondent
performed odorant tests on Lines 1015 and 2074 and found that odorization levels on both were
compliant with § 192.625(a).31
23 Notice, at 3.
24 Id.
25 Response, at 14.
26 Id., at 15.
27 Id., at 17; Transcript, at 50-52; Closing, at 9.
28 Response, at 15; Closing, at 9-11.
29 Response, at 15.
30 Id.
31 Id.



CPF No. 5-2015-1008
Page 7
Respondent also noted that none of its transmission lines that serve the Cities of Benson, Safford,
or Wilcox, or Graham County Utilities were required to be odorized at or near these
municipalities.32
Respondent also argued that even if its lines were not properly odorized, following PHMSA
precedent, a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(a) is not an automatic violation if the operator
demonstrates that it took “prompt action” on discovery to increase odorant levels to acceptable
limits.33 Contrary to OPS’s allegation that “[o]nce the odorant issue became known EPNG failed
to immediately contact the distribution Operators,”34 Respondent stated that it took prompt
action to correct any odorization concerns raised by LDC customers. On June 12, 2014, a
customer alerted Respondent to a possible odorization issue.35 On June 13, 2014, Respondent
personnel initiated a series of phone calls notifying most customers of the potential odorant
issues, as well as posting a statement on its Electronic Bulletin Board.36 On June 14, 2014,
Respondent notified customers that injection of additional odorant into certain lines would occur.
On June 19, 2014, Respondent technicians took odor readings at each of Respondent’s lateral
lines that are required to be odorized.37 The readings demonstrated that all lateral lines were
odorized at a level well within the range required for compliance with 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(a).38
At the hearing, OPS requested that Respondent provide historical records, and stated that it
would reexamine the evidence presented.39 Respondent provided both historical and updated
data showing historical odor testing and odor levels at the pipeline at issue.40 Respondent
supplemented its evidence with additional odorization test records that showed readings on June
12, 2014, and June 14, 2014, at meter numbers 30148 and 30149, which are located directly on
Line 1015, as well as June 13, 2014 and June 14, 2014 readings at meter 20467, directly on Line
1015. These records also show readings on June 12, 2014, in the immediate proximity of Lines
1015 and 2074, at meter numbers 30931 and 20537. The records also included readings on June
17, 2014, at meter 31558 on Line 1015.41
32 Transcript, at 16.
33 PHMSA Letter of Interpretation to Columbia Gas Distribution Companies, at 2, PI-93-009; PHMSA, Operations
& Maintenance Enforcement Guidance: Part 192 Subparts L and M, at 84 (Dec. 7, 2015); Transcript 94-99; Closing,
at 14-15.
34 Violation Report, at 21; Response, at 19.
35 Response, at 15.
36 Id., Exs. 7 and 12.
37 Id., Ex. 10.
38 Id.; Response, at 19.
39 Transcript, at 60; Closing, at 11-12.
40 Closing, at 9-12; Response Exs. 9-10 (“Odorometer Readings from Meters Near Phoenix and Tucson, Odorometer
Certificates of Calibration, and Operator Qualification Records,” and “EPNG Odorometer Readings of Lateral
Pipelines” (June 19, 2014)) both attached as Exhibit 11 and 10; Closing, Ex. C (“Odorization Test Readings Mid-
June 2014”).
41 Closing, Ex. C.



CPF No. 5-2015-1008
Page 8
Respondent noted that its “historical and mid-June 2014 readings are the only evidence in the
case file regarding actual odorant levels on EPNG’s pipelines and they show that they had
compliant levels of odorant.”42 Respondent pointed out that OPS had offered no evidence of
odor levels prior to June 12, 2014, despite stating in the hearing that the basis for the alleged
violation was that “it was prior to June 12th that the odorant was not being maintained.”43 It
stated that in light of its evidence, OPS could not “prevail simply by offering a series of cryptic
LDC odorization records that are not correlated to EPNG’s system, and then failing to defend
those records at the Hearing.”44
Proper odorization of pipelines that are required to be odorized is a key part of pipeline safety.
Operators are obligated to conduct sufficient monitoring at appropriate locations to ensure that if
odorant levels fall below adequate levels, additional odorant is injected. Although OPS had
ample opportunity to review and assess the extensive records provided by Respondent in its
hearing exhibits, OPS did not opine on the historical records or updated data in its
recommendation. While the records produced to the OPS inspector at the time of the inspection
were arguably incomplete and likely contributed to this becoming an NOPV item, OPS did not
allege a failure to maintain full records. Rather OPS alleged that lines were not odorized and in
this instance was unable to carry its burden of proving the allegation.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, in the absence of countervailing opinion or
analysis, I find that OPS has failed to demonstrate that there was a violation in this instance.
Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 2 be withdrawn.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, which states in
relevant part:
§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual
of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for
emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual must also include
procedures for handling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and
updated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each
calendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system
commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where
operations and maintenance activities are conducted.
(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a)
of this section must include procedures for the following, if applicable, to provide
safety during maintenance and operations.
(1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance with each
of the requirements of this subpart and subpart M of this part.
42 Id., at 13.
43 Closing, at 16; Transcript, at 108.
44 Closing, at 11.



CPF No. 5-2015-1008
Page 9
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to prepare and
follow a procedure that would ensure operation and maintenance of the pipeline in accordance
with the requirements of § 192.625, “Odorization of Gas.” Specifically, the Notice alleged that
EPNG's written procedure (1026 "Natural Gas Odorization") stated that the gas must be
detectable at one-fifth of the lower explosive level (LEL); however, it did not specify the actual
LEL percentage. Section 192.625 states: “A combustible gas in a distribution line must contain a
natural odorant or be odorized so that at a concentration in air of one-fifth of the lower explosive
limit, the gas is readily detectable by a person with a normal sense of smell.” Without specifying
the LEL, there is not sufficient information for field personnel to determine if the gas is
adequately odorized.45
In its Response and at the hearing, Respondent stated that OPS had not satisfied its burden of
proof to establish that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(b)(1).46 EPNG acknowledged
that its O&M Procedure 1026 did not specify an LEL percentage, but pointed out that the
pipeline safety regulations did not require that the percentage be included in the procedures.47
Respondent further explained that its practice is to direct its field personnel to use an LEL of five
percent for purposes of odor readings on its system.48 As part of its operator qualification
process, Respondent provides training to its field technicians on the proper LEL percentage to
utilize on its system and its training documentation provides that “[o]dorized gas must contain an
odorant in an amount that will be readily detectable in concentrations of gas in air of 1/5 the
lower explosive limit of 5% which is 1% gas in air.”49
Respondent rejected OPS’s claim that it had violated § 192.605 because it “does not have a
consistent number that can be used as the LEL” based on different LEL percentages listed in
different documents.50 OPS relied on a written procedure for gas detection instruments and a
presentation to first responders.51 However, Respondent stated that the referenced documents
did not demonstrate a violation because they do not “purport to provide the LEL percentage for
purposes of odorization testing.”52 In fact, the presentation to first responders is a third-party
45 Notice, at 4.
46 Response, at 21.
47 Id., Respondent’s O&M Procedures are prepared by its parent company, Kinder Morgan. Kinder Morgan has
prepared a unified set of O&M procedures for its numerous gas pipelines systems, each with varying chemical
makeups. The Kinder Morgan odorization procedure does not include a specific LEL percentage because of this
variability across systems. Id.
48 Id., at 22; Closing, at 7.
49 Response at 22; Response Ex. 14 (Kinder Morgan, Measurement Standards Training, Test Gas Odorant Level,
Odorization Training PowerPoint Slides), at slide 25. EPNG has also provided affidavits from its Measurement
Technicians confirming that EPNG has instructed them to use a 5 percent LEL for purposes of odorant
measurements through on-the-job training. Response, Ex. 15 (Affidavits of Field Technicians).
50 Response, at 22-23; Violation Report, at 30.
51 Violation Report, at 30; Transcript 20-21.
52 Response, at 22-23; Closing, at 5.



CPF No. 5-2015-1008
Page 10
training contractor’s presentation designed for third-party responders who are not Respondent
employees.53
In response to OPS’s concern that the O&M procedures did not clearly reference Respondent’s
training materials, Respondent replied that its procedures did reference on-the-job training. This
training provides guidance to employees who take the readings and use them “as a starting point
for figuring out what the lower explosive limit is for a section of pipe.”54 Respondent stated that
its “written procedures in conjunction with qualification training for measurement technicians,
allows field personnel to determine that the gas is adequately odorized in compliance with
49 C.F.R. § 192.625.”55 Respondent, however, was not persuasive on this point. If training
materials are to constitute procedures or supplement them, the operator has the burden of making
that explicit in the O&M manual.
The procedural manual is a key part of ensuring that operator personnel have clear instructions
on how to detect gas. Without proper odorization levels, operator personnel and the public are
potentially placed in danger. Though EPNG’s procedures correctly state that gas must be
detectable at one-fifth of the LEL, failing to list a specific LEL may well complicate the ability
of field personnel to determine appropriate odorization levels. However, when asked at the
hearing whether there was an explicit requirement in § 192.605 that the LEL percentage be listed
in the O&M, OPS replied that “it doesn't say anything, specifically, about providing the LEL.”56
While it appears that it would be strongly advisable for EPNG to amend its procedures and
specify the LEL (often accomplished by issuance of a Notice of Amendment), that does not
equate to failure to comply with the applicable code language which could have required that
LEL be specified but does not.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that OPS has failed to demonstrate that
there was a violation in this instance. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 3 be
withdrawn.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
June 16, 2017
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
53 Response, at 23; Transcript 20-21; Closing, at 5.
54 Transcript, at 34.
55 Closing, at 7.
56 Transcript, at 17.

520151008_NOPV PCP PCO_07282015_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
July 28, 2015
Mr. Gary Buchler
Vice President, Engineering and Operations
El Paso Natural Gas Division
Kinder Morgan, Inc.
1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77002-5089
CPF 5-2015-1008
Dear Mr. Buchler:
On June 18-26, 2014, a representative of the Arizona Corporation Commission’s Pipeline
Safety Section and a representative from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49
Code of Federal Regulations, inspected the El Paso Natural Gas (EPNG) Tucson Complex
and Phoenix Complex gas transmission pipeline systems in Tucson and Phoenix, Arizona.
As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and
the probable violations are:



1. 192.616 Public Awareness.
(a) Except for an operator of a master meter or petroleum gas system covered
under paragraph (j) of this section, each pipeline operator must develop and
implement a written continuing public education program that follows the
guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended
Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7).
(d) The operator's program must specifically include provisions to educate the
public, appropriate government organizations, and persons engaged in
excavation related activities on:
(3) Physical indications that such a release may have occurred;
EPNG failed to develop and implement a written continuing public education program that
followed the guidance in API RP 1162. EPNG’s written public awareness messages given to
the affected public failed to include relevant information about physical indications that a
release may have occurred.
The guidance in API 1162 states: “An operator should select the optimum combination of
message, delivery method, and frequency that meets the needs of the intended audience”
(Section 4, Message Content) and “Information should address how to recognize a pipeline
leak through the senses of sight, unusual sound, and smell and describe any associated
dangers as appropriate to the product type” (Section 4.3.2, How to Recognize a Pipeline
Leak).
EPNG’s pipeline system transported gas with natural aromatic hydrocarbons. This type of gas
has an odor that may vary depending on which wells are used as a gas source and could have
different odors besides the normal pungent smell of mercaptan and petroleum odors. For that
reason, EPNG provided written public awareness messages to excavators and emergency
response officials stating that physical indications of a release would include the odor of
petroleum, mercaptan (rotten egg), or a fragrant odor. However, EPNG’s public awareness
mailer that was provided to the affected public stated only that either a petroleum or a pungent
odor such as sulfur (rotten egg) may be present if a release of natural gas has occurred.
The public awareness mailer for the affected public did not include all known physical
indications of a release of natural gas.
2. 192.625 Odorization of gas.
(a) A combustible gas in a distribution line must contain a natural odorant or be
odorized so that at a concentration in air of one-fifth of the lower explosive limit,
the gas is readily detectable by a person with a normal sense of smell.



(b) After December 31, 1976, a combustible gas in a transmission line in a Class
3 or Class 4 location must comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section unless:
(1) At least 50 percent of the length of the line downstream from that location is
in a Class 1 or Class 2 location;
(2) The line transports gas to any of the following facilities which received gas
without an odorant from that line before May 5, 1975:
(i) An underground storage field;
(ii) A gas processing plant;
(iii) A gas dehydration plant; or
(iv) An industrial plant using gas in a process where the presence of an odorant:
(A) Makes the end product unfit for the purpose for which it is intended;
(B) Reduces the activity of a catalyst; or
(C) Reduces the percentage completion of a chemical reaction
(3) In the case of a lateral line which transports gas to a distribution center, at
least 50 percent of the length of that line is in a Class 1 or Class 2 location.; or
(4) The combustible gas is hydrogen intended for use as a feedstock in a
manufacturing process.
EPNG did not maintain odorized gas in its pipelines as required by paragraphs (a) and (b).
Two of EPNG’s gas lines, numbered 1015 and 2074, located in the greater Tucson area have
over 50% of the pipeline in Class 3 locations. Both of these lines were not odorized
according to the requirements of paragraph (a).
The lack of detectable odorant was first observed by a construction crew from Southwest Gas
Corporation near Willcox, Arizona, which is downstream downstream from EPNG’s
transmission lines, on June 11, 2014. Southwest Gas alerted other distribution operators on
June 12, 2014. The Cities of Safford and Benson and Graham County Utilities reported
unodorized or low level odorization as well. Distribution operators downstream from EPNG’s
transmission lines provided odorant sniff test and odorometer records that showed insufficient
odorization of gas throughout the Southeast region of Arizona.
3. 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual
of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and
for emergency response . . . .
(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of
this section must include procedures for the following, if applicable, to provide
safety during maintenance and operations.
(1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance with each of
the requirements of this subpart and subpart M of this part.



EPNG failed to prepare and follow a procedure that would ensure operation and maintenance
of the pipeline in accordance with the requirements of § 192.625, Odorization of Gas.
Section 192.625 states “A combustible gas in a distribution line must contain a natural
odorant or be odorized so that at a concentration in air of one-fifth of the lower explosive
limit, the gas is readily detectable by a person with a normal sense of smell.” EPNG’s written
procedure (1026 “Natural Gas Odorization”) stated that the gas must be detectable at 1/5 of
the LEL, however, it did not specify the actual LEL percentage. Without specifying the LEL,
there is not sufficient information for field personnel to determine if the gas is adequately
odorized.
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a
related series of violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum
penalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to
exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the
circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violations and
has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $162,700 as follows:
Item number PENALTY
1 $50,400
2 $61,900
3 $50,400
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to items 1, 2, and 3 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to El Paso
Natural Gas Company. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed
and made a part of this Notice.
Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline
Operators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response
options. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly
available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for
confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you
must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for
confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted
information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond
within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the
allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to
find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.



In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2015-1008 and for each
document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Chris Hoidal
Director, Western Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry
PHP-500 C. Ishikawa (#147016)
Arizona Corporation Commission - Pipeline Safety Section



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to El Paso Natural Gas Company a Compliance
Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of El Paso
Natural Gas Company with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. 2. 3. 4. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to EPNG’s failure to give
the affected public the same information about smells of natural gas that is
provided to excavator and emergency response officials, EPNG must amend its
written public awareness messages to the affected public. Written public
awareness materials must be amended and delivered to the general public
located in Southern Arizona within ninety (90) days following receipt of this
final order.
In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to EPNG’s failure to
maintain odorized gas in its South System, EPNG must evaluate their entire
natural gas system in Southern A
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 41226