I am writing today to announce the closure of the New Mexico Independent. After three and a half years of operation in New Mexico, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news…
While environmental activists played their part yesterday during demonstrations at the capitol building, going so far as to dress up as solar panels and to sing the tune of “You Are My Sunshine,” their counterparts, the anti-cap-and-trade contingency who has…
Roughly one quarter of University of New Mexico students are unimpressed with the state’s flagship public school, according to a survey that questioned college students about their higher education experiences.
A potentially explosive natural gas leak that PNM employees left unrepaired for two months in 2008 may not have been the first such leak near the busy intersection of Albuquerque’s Montgomery and Carlisle blvds, Public Regulation Commission (PRC) members were told Monday.
PNM records reviewed by PRC Pipeline Safety Bureau engineering coordinator Joe Johnson as part of an investigation into the leak included a 2005 budget request to repair a leak near the intersection, he told commissioners.
PNM employee Kelly Bouska also told PRC investigators she had submitted other requests to correct leaks near the intersection, Johnson said.
But PNM Regulatory Policy Director Gerald Ortiz said the company could locate no such records.
Bouska was on leave and unavailable to testify at Monday’s PRC hearing, PNM officials said.
PNM has agreed to a proposed $66,000 stipulated settlement negotiated with PRC staff, including $50,000 for safety violations related to the leak, including failures to document the leak when it was discovered. The remaining $16,000 of the settlement would be for other violations, including failures to properly “odorize” natural gas in 2006, 2007 and 2008, as required by federal law.
Under the Pipeline Safety Act and PRC regulations, PNM could face up to $500,000 in fines for the violations.
But “$50,000 is a significant penalty, especially when you consider previous cases,” Ortiz told commissioners. “In surrounding states…$50,000 is close to the high end.”
Referring to PNM’s website, Commissioner Jason Marks noted that the company’s gas operations earned $21.9 million in 2008, and that the proposed fine represents less than a day’s worth of that profit.
Marks and Justin Lesky, an attorney for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers closely cross-examined Ortiz, other PNM officials and New Mexico Gas Company workers for most of the day about PNM’s failure to tell the PRC’s Pipeline Safety Bureau and federal pipeline safety officials about the 2008 leak.
The leak was discovered in May 2008, but PNM officials did not alert state and federal pipeline safety authorities, as required by law.
Nor did they document the leak, post warnings of the explosive hazard or begin repairs until July 2008, when Johnson began investigating complaints from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 611.
Part of the proposed $66,000 settlement is for violations stemming from PNM’s failure to document the leak with a “leak ticket” card. But Ortiz cited the absence of such documentation as evidence that other leaks had not occurred near the intersection.
“There was no indication of significant leaks in this vault prior to May 2008,” Ortiz said. “We couldn’t identify any leak detection cards or any other documents of a leak.”
Asked by Marks whether PNM had “kept things” from the Pipeline Safety Bureau in other cases, Ortiz hesitated.
“Um…um…I’m hesitating because when you say ‘kept things from PSB,’ it implies intent,” Ortiz said. “I can’t testify to (intent).”
The 2008 leak at Montgomery and Carlisle was caused by “a problem with a valve and some loose bolts,” Ortiz testified.
But asked by Lesky why such a simple matter was fixed by permanently closing the work vault and bypassing the pipeline it contained, Ortiz said he did not know.
Not mentioned at the hearing were federal regulations that prohibit locating pipeline vaults near busy intersections.
If PNM’s vault was older than the federal regulations, it would “possibly” be grandfathered in as exempt from the rule against vaults near intersections, Johnson told The Independent during the hearing’s noon break.
“But (PNM) didn’t have information about when the vault was installed,” Johnson said.
The vault was filled in and bypassed with new pipeline in August 2009, Johnson said.
Explosive situation
Air samples containing 4 to 15 percent natural gas are explosive, Johnson told commissioners.
The air in and near the vault was 10 to 15 percent gas, PRC records show — well within the explosive range, Johnson said.
“It was a hazardous situation that needed immediate attention,” Johnson testified.
“It could ignite,” former PNM gas operations supervisor David Delorenzo acknowledged in his testimony.
Delorenzo now works for New Mexico Gas Company, which now owns and operates the pipeline.
Upon learning that Johnson was heading to the site of the leak July 16, Delorenzo ordered a gas crew to go to the site and vent air from the vault, he acknowledged Monday.
“When we arrived at the site, we could see the (PNM) truck was there and the vault was being vented at that time,” Johnson told commissioners. “The man hole cover was off. I was a little surprised.”
Delorenzo also instructed an employee to backdate and falsify another employee’s signature on a “leak ticket” report, he admitted, potentially creating the appearance that the leak had been documented the day of its discovery in May.
“There were several inconsistencies,” Johnson said. “Things (said) just didn’t go together very well.”
PNM employees told Johnson they had done migration tests to see whether gas from the leak had spread beyond the work vault, Johnson said.
“But I looked at the pavement and didn’t see any bore holes in the pavement,” Johnson said.
Johnson’s subsequent review of PNM’s safety records revealed gaps and inaccuracies in PNM safety records and suggested PNM’s pipeline maintenance problems were more widespread than the leak at Montgomery and Carlisle, his testimony revealed Monday.
The problems included lapses in maintenance and corrosion monitoring practices, and misleading PNM leak survey reports and annual reports.
Some pipeline valves were not properly maintained and corrosion protection and monitoring practices did not meet regulatory requirements, PRC records show.
Up to 10 percent of PNM’s service lines had not been monitored annually, as required, allowing the failure of corrosion-prevention equipment to go undetected.
One gas pipeline main at 3135 Comanche NE in Albuquerque, for example, had inadequate corrosion protection for more than 15 months, and there were no records indicating PNM had ever monitored the pipeline for corrosion protection prior to the PRC’s inspection.
PNM never determined the cause of internal corrosion of gas pipelines at several locations in Albuquerque, PRC investigators found.
Internal pipeline corrosion can cause leaks, Johnson said.
PNM removed at least 249 locations from its list of business districts and subsequently excluded mention of these locations from its leak survey reports to the state in 2007 and 2008, PRC investigators found.
Based on Monday’s testimony, Commissioners will now decide whether or not to accept the proposed $66,000 settlement.
The Commission’s decision is expected next month.
