CENTERPOINT ENERGY RESOURCES CORPORATION

Incident Narrative

THE INVESTIGATION TO DATE INDICATES THAT LINE LOCATES WERE OBTAINED AND A PRE-BORE VERIFICATION POTHOLE WAS DUG AT THE SUBJECT LOCATION BY THE CONTRACTOR ON JULY 15, 2021, AT WHICH TIME THE DEPTH OF THE SERVICE LINE WAS OBSERVED AND RECORDED; THE CONTRACTOR BACKFILLED THE POTHOLE BEFORE THE CONTRACTOR CONDUCTED THE DIRECTIONAL BORE OPERATION ON THE AFTERNOON OF JULY 28, 2021. THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF DAMAGE TO THE GAS SERVICE LINE AT THE SCENE OF THE INCIDENT BEFORE THE PULL-BACK OPERATION ON THE MORNING OF JULY 29, 2021. AS INDICATED IN PART A.11, OPERATOR'S INITIAL INDICATION OF THE FAILURE WAS FROM INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL. PART A.12 OF THIS REPORT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR AN EXPLANATION. THE CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL IDENTIFIED DAMAGE TO THE GAS LINE AND THE ODOR OF GAS AT 9:59 A.M. ON JULY 29, 2021. CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL CALLED 911 AT 9:59 AM. WITHIN MINUTES OF THE ARRIVAL OF THE FIRST RESPONDING POLICE OFFICER, CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL INFORMED THE POLICE OFFICER THAT A GAS LINE HAD BEEN HIT. BOTH OF THESE COMMUNICATIONS TO 911 AND TO THE POLICE OFFICER OCCURRED BEFORE CENTERPOINT WAS NOTIFIED OF THE INCIDENT. PART A.14 DOES NOT PROVIDE THE OPTION TO INCLUDE THE CONTRACTOR AS HAVING PROVIDED THAT INFORMATION TO LOCAL EMERGENCY RESPONDERS. THE TIME INDICATED IN PART A.15 OF THE COMMUNICATION TO EMERGENCY RESPONDERS WAS BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE TIME INSERTED IN PART A.4 AS THE EARLIEST LOCAL TIME THAT INCIDENT REPORTING CRITERIA WAS MET WAS DETERMINED BASED UPON THE POSSIBILITY OF PROPERTY DAMAGES EXCEEDING THE REPORT CRITERIA AMOUNT, AT WHICH TIME CENTERPOINT DID NOT HAVE ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY DAMAGE OR INJURIES REQUIRING HOSPITALIZATION. THE INITIAL VISUAL EXAMINATION OF THE SERVICE LINE AFTER THE INCIDENT AT THE SITE REVEALED THAT THE STEEL SERVICE LINE APPEARED TO HAVE BEEN GOUGED AND DEFORMED BY DIRECTIONAL BORING EQUIPMENT. THE DAMAGED SERVICE LINE PIPE WAS REMOVED FROM THE SCENE AND WAS EXAMINED AS PART OF A JOINT INSPECTION AT A METALLURGICAL LABORATORY. THE EXAMINATION CONFIRMED THAT THE STEEL SERVICE LINE WAS GOUGED BY THE DIRECTIONAL BORE DRILL BIT ON JULY 28. THE FAILURE ANALYSIS OF THE PIPE INDICATED THAT THE BREACH OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF A SINGLE EVENT DUCTILE OVERLOAD DUE TO CONTACT BETWEEN THE PIPE AND THE EQUIPMENT USED DURING THE PULL-BACK OF THE NEWLY INSTALLED POLY PIPE ON JULY 29. NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND TO INDICATE THAT THE STEEL SERVICE LINE LEAKED AT THE LOCATION OF THE ULTIMATE BREACH BEFORE THE DIRECTIONAL DRILLING AND PULL-BACK OPERATION. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CORROSION OR PIPE MATERIAL DEFICIENCY THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE ULTIMATE BREACH OF THE PIPE. IN REFERENCE TO PART F QUESTION 2, ONLY 1 CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE WAS DOT DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTED. WITHIN 5 HOURS OF THE INCIDENT, OPERATOR DIRECTED BOTH CONTRACTOR COMPANIES TO PERFORM DOT DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING OF THEIR EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN THE OPERATION. THE SOLE MAGNOLIA RIVER EMPLOYEE INVOLVED IN THE OPERATION SUBMITTED FOR THE APPROPRIATE TESTING, AND THE RESULTS WERE NEGATIVE. SUBSEQUENT TO ITS INITIAL DIRECTION TO MDR GROUP CONSTRUCTION REGARDING TESTING REQUIREMENTS, OPERATOR LEARNED THAT THE TESTING FACILITY CHOSEN BY MDR GROUP CONSTRUCTION WAS CLOSED, AND IT USED AN ALTERNATIVE FACILITY. OPERATOR LEARNED BEYOND THE TESTING WINDOW THAT THE ALTERNATIVE FACILITY DID NOT ADMINISTER ALCOHOL TESTING TO ANY OF THE MDR GROUP CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYEES DURING THE PRESCRIBED TESTING WINDOW. THE DRUG TESTS FOR THE MDR GROUP CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYEES WERE NEGATIVE.