{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120135004","title":"KINDER MORGAN LIQUID TERMINALS, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-04-04","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.402(c)(3), 195.406(b), 195.422(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120135004.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120135004.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120135004","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120135004","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving KINDER MORGAN LIQUID TERMINALS, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.402(c)(3),  195.406(b),  195.422(a). The case was opened on 2013-04-04 and is reported as closed as of 2015-02-19. Proposed civil penalty: $500,000. Assessed civil penalty: $500,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120135004_Closure Letter_02192015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135004/120135004_Closure%20Letter_02192015.pdf\n\n120135004_Closure Letter_02192015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135004/120135004_Closure%20Letter_02192015_text.pdf\n\n120135004_Final Order_05052014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135004/120135004_Final%20Order_05052014.pdf\n\n120135004_Final Order_05052014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135004/120135004_Final%20Order_05052014_text.pdf\n\n120135004_NOPV_PCP_PCO_04042013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135004/120135004_NOPV_PCP_PCO_04042013.pdf\n\n120135004_NOPV_PCP_PCO_04042013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135004/120135004_NOPV_PCP_PCO_04042013_text.pdf\n\n120135004_Operator Response_05022013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135004/120135004_Operator%20Response_05022013.pdf\n\n120135004_Closure Letter_02192015_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department Of Transportation Pipeline and 609.989.2171\nHazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103\nWest Trenton, NJ 08628\nUPS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY\nFebruary 19, 2015\nMr. Carlos Munguia\nVice President of Operations & Engineering\nKinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC\n8500 West 68th Street\nArgo, IL 60501\nCPF 1-2013-5004\nDear Mr. Munguia:\nOn May 5, 2014, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, issued to Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC a Final Order in the above-referenced\ncase. This Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our\nreview of the documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it\nhas been determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nByron Coy, PE\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\n\n120135004_Final Order_05052014_text.pdf\n\nMAY 5, 2014\nMr. Carlos T. Munguia\nVice President − Operations\nKinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC\n8500 W. 68th Street\nArgo, IL 60501-0409\nRe: CPF No. 1-2013-5004\nDear Mr. Munguia:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $500,000, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nKinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The\npenalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and\nthe terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region,\nOPS, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is\ndeemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Byron Coy, PE, Director, Eastern Region, OPS\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____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nKinder Morgan ) CPF No. 1-2013-5004\nLiquids Terminals, LLC, )\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nPursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an investigation of an\naccident involving pipeline facilities operated by Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC\n(Kinder Morgan or Respondent) in Carteret, New Jersey. The Carteret facility is part of\nRespondent’s Northeast Region, covers over 200 acres, and includes over 300 storage and\nbreakout tanks and incoming and outgoing pipelines.1 The facility receives petroleum products\nfrom Colonial Pipeline Company’s Line L6 and transports these products to various destinations.\nThe investigation arose out of a March 14, 2011 accident at the Carteret facility in which “Hot\nWork” activities were being conducted near the GANJ Manifold at the time the facility was\nreceiving a large shipment of unleaded gasoline from Colonial’s Line 6. Workers loosened a\nvalve gear assembly designated as the NL Valve on the header causing a pressure surge since\nLine 6 was an active line. The surge separated a manifold flange causing gasoline to spray an\narea where other workers were using welding torches which ignited the gasoline resulting in a\nfire. One contract worker was injured in the fire and it caused approximately $1.3 million in\ndamage to the facilities, equipment, and vehicles in the area.2\nAs a result of the investigation, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated April 4, 2013, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\n1 Respondent’s liquids terminals business unit includes approximately 50 liquids terminals that store fuels and offer\nblending services for ethanol and other products. Kinder Morgan is one of the largest transporters of refined\npetroleum products in North America and its facilities include over 8,000 miles of pipelines. PHMSA Violation\nReport at 1.\n2 PHMSA Violation Report, Exhibit A-3.\n\n\n\n2\nNotice proposed finding that Kinder Morgan had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part\n195, and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $500,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice\nalso proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct two of the alleged\nviolations.\nKinder Morgan responded to the Notice by letter dated May 2, 2013 (Response). The company\ndid not contest the allegations of violation, but provided information concerning the corrective\nactions it had taken. Respondent did request a reduction in the proposed civil penalty amount\nstating that it believed Items 1−3 in the Notice should be treated as a single violation. Kinder\nMorgan also indicated that it may need additional time to complete the terms of the proposed\ncompliance order. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to\none.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Kinder Morgan did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated\n49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline\nsystem a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations\nand maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes\nmade as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall\nbe prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and\nappropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its own\nwritten procedures for operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system that were\nestablished pursuant to § 195.402(c)(3) (O&M procedures). Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nKinder Morgan failed to follow written procedure T-O&M 103 Safety Permits which required its\npersonnel to obtain a “Safe Work Permit” for the NL Valve repair project. Respondent did not\ncontest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I\nfind that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow written procedure T-\nO&M 103 Safety Permits and obtain a “Safe Work Permit” for the NL Valve repair project.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), as quoted above,\nby failing to follow its own written procedures for operating, maintaining, and repairing the\npipeline system that were established pursuant to § 195.402(c)(3). Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Kinder Morgan failed to follow its written procedure T-O&M 152 Lockout and\n\n\n\n3\nTagout which required its personnel to lockout and tagout any energy isolating device when\nperforming maintenance or repairs—in this case the lines upstream of the NL Valve.\n3\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its\nwritten procedure T-O&M 152 Lockout and Tagout and ensuring the lockout and tagout of an\nenergy isolating device when performing repair work.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), as quoted above,\nby failing to prepare and follow procedures for operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline\nsystem in accordance with § 195.402(c)(3). Specifically, the Notice alleged that Kinder Morgan\ndid not have a written procedure in place for performing the NL Valve repair in a safe manner.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to prepare and\nfollow a written procedure for performing the NL Valve repair in a safe manner.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b), which states:\n§ 195.406 Maximum operating pressure.\n(a) …\n(b) No operator may permit the pressure in a pipeline during surges or\nother variations from normal operations to exceed 110 percent of the\noperating pressure limit established under paragraph (a) of this section.\nEach operator must provide adequate controls and protective equipment to\ncontrol the pressure within this limit.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b) by permitting the pressure\nat the GANJ Manifold to exceed 110 percent of maximum operating pressure (MOP) during a\nsurge or other variation from normal operation. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Kinder\nMorgan allowed the pressure to exceed 523 psig at the GANJ Manifold during the event, far\nexceeding its MOP of 285 psig. The Notice further alleged that Respondent failed to provide\nadequate controls and protective equipment to control the pressure on Line L6. According to the\nNotice, in a post-accident analysis of the overpressure protection system at the Carteret\nTerminal, Kinder Morgan acknowledged that there was no pressure relief system connected to\nthe GANJ Manifold and that over-pressurization protection on the line was not up to industry\nstandard. The lack of adequate overpressure controls on Line L6 allowed the flanges on Valves\nG1 and G2 to separate due to the pressure surge and served as a contributing cause of the\nAccident. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a\nreview of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b) by\npermitting the pressure at the GANJ Manifold to exceed 110 percent of MOP during a surge or\nother variation from normal operation and failing to provide adequate controls and protective\nequipment to control the pressure on Line L6.\n3 Ensuring devices such as closed valves are locked out and tagged out prevents them from being inadvertently\nopened and causing unsafe releases of energy products during repair work.\n\n\n\n4\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.422(a), which states:\n§ 195.422 Pipeline Repairs.\n(a) Each operator shall, in repairing its pipeline systems, insure that the\nrepairs are made in a safe manner and are made so as to prevent damage to\npersons or property.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.422(a) by failing to ensure that a\nrepair to its pipeline system was made in a safe manner so as to prevent damage to persons or\nproperty. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the NL Valve repairs were not made in a safe\nmanner because, in addition to the failure to have and then follow the various written procedures\ndescribed in Item 3 above, the valve work crew continued with its work even after the crew\nbecame aware that the L6 Line was in operation, was under pressure, was receiving a shipment\nof unleaded gasoline through the valve that was undergoing repair, and an oxy-acetylene torch\nwas being used 20 feet away. According to the Notice, there was also inadequate\ncommunication and coordination among the work crews. Respondent did not contest this\nallegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.422(a) by failing to ensure that a repair to its pipeline\nsystem was made in a safe manner so as to prevent damage to persons or property.\nWith respect to Respondent’s suggestion that Items 1 – 3 should be treated as a single violation,\nItem 1 involved failure to obtain a Safe Work Permit, Item 2 involved failure to perform lockout\nand tagout, and Item 3 involved failure to have a procedure for the performance of the repair\nitself. These are different violations because each arises from different conduct at different\nstages, involves a different O&M provision, and stands on different evidence.4 Therefore, I do\nnot accept Respondent’s suggestion that violations 1 – 3 be combined into one violation.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $500,000 for the violations cited above.\n4 There are situations where the same O&M provision can be violated at multiple locations or on multiple occasions\nand these are also considered separate violations.\n\n\n\n5\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $100,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), for failing to follow written procedure T-O&M 103 Safety Permits and\nobtain a “Safe Work Permit” for the NL Valve repair project. In its Response, Kinder Morgan\nrequested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced by combining Items 1-3 into one violation.\nFor the reasons discussed above, I did not accept this argument.\nWith respect to the nature, circumstances, and gravity of this violation, the use of safety permits\nis a key part of ensuring that work areas are safe and that personnel fully plan for and\ncommunicate with each other about any work being performed. Prior to the accident, Kinder\nMorgan failed to follow various provisions in T-O&M 103, including documenting the scope of\nthe NL Valve repair project and that the area and equipment have been prepared and deemed safe\nto work on or near. This violation contributed to a serious fire and evacuation. Respondent is\nculpable for the violation because Kinder Morgan was obligated to ensure company personnel\nfollowed the procedure and if a Safe Work Permit had been secured, the work crew would likely\nhave been directed to take field safety precautions to conduct the work safely—or the idea of\ndoing the work while a fuel delivery was underway may have even been rejected by the company\nofficial responsible for issuing such permits.\nIn its Response, Kinder Morgan expressed the view that its efforts to correct the deficiencies\nfollowing the accident demonstrated good faith. While good faith may apply to an operator’s\nefforts to achieve compliance prior to the discovery of the non-compliance by OPS for purposes\nof a possible penalty reduction, I would note that it does not apply to corrective actions taken\nafterwards. In this case, nothing in the record constitutes a good faith effort to comply prior to\nthe accident.\nKinder Morgan neither contested the violation nor presented any information or arguments that\nwould warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $100,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $100,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), for failing to follow its written procedure T-O&M 152 Lockout and\nTagout and ensuring the lockout and tagout of an energy isolating device when performing repair\nwork. With respect to the nature, circumstances, and gravity of this violation, proper lockout and\ntagout are key to safe repairs because these procedures are designed to directly protect personnel\nfrom unexpected startup or energy releases during maintenance or repair projects. Respondent is\nculpable for the violation because lockout and tagout are basic precautions prior to performing\nrepairs and according to the company’s own internal report, “the incident was caused by failure\nto follow the lock-out/tag-out procedure. . . .”5 Nothing in the record constitutes a good faith\neffort to comply prior to the accident.\nKinder Morgan neither contested the violation nor presented any information or arguments that\nwould warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\n5 PHMSA Violation Report, Exhibit A-3.\n\n\n\n6\nRespondent a civil penalty of $100,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a).\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $100,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), for failing to prepare and follow a written procedure for performing the\nNL Valve repair in a safe manner. With respect to the nature, circumstances, and gravity of this\nviolation, while Respondent’s O&M manual had a procedure T-O&M 301, Inspecting and\nServicing Pipeline Valves, it did not address maintenance or repairs or provide instructions as to\nhow they should be performed on a manually operated valve, such as the NL Valve, to ensure the\nwork is performed in a safe manner. In particular, T-O&M 301 did not address whether or how\nvalve maintenance or repairs could be made safely on an active line. In its internal report,\nKinder Morgan stated that it was company policy to perform repair work only on inactive lines,\nbut it did not have written procedures that implemented this policy. Respondent is culpable for\nthe violation because Kinder Morgan had an obligation to prepare and implement adequate\nwritten procedures for maintaining or repairing valves safely and so as to prevent damage to\npersons or property. If it had, it is entirely possible that the company would not have conducted\nthe NL Valve work on an active line and the accident may not have occurred. Nothing in the\nrecord constitutes a good faith effort to comply prior to the accident.\nKinder Morgan neither contested the violation nor presented any information or arguments that\nwould warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $100,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a).\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $100,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 406(b), by permitting the pressure at the GANJ Manifold to exceed 110 percent of\nMOP during a surge or other variation from normal operation and failing to provide adequate\ncontrols and protective equipment to control the pressure on Line L6. With respect to the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of this violation, controlling pipe pressure within maximum limits is a\nfundamental part of safe operations. The sudden closing of the NL Valve resulted in a pressure\nsurge to over 523 psig and caused the flanges on the upstream Valves G1 and G2 to separate and\nspray gasoline around the GANJ Manifold area and over a nearby access road and be ignited by\nthe torch resulting in an injury, evacuation, and extensive damage. Respondent is culpable for\nthe violation because it failed to take steps that would have made the pressure surge less likely.\nIn its post-accident analysis of the overpressure protection system at the Carteret Terminal,\nKinder Morgan acknowledged that there was no pressure relief system connected to the GANJ\nManifold and that over-pressurization protection on the line was “not up to industry standard.”\nThe lack of adequate overpressure controls on Line L6 allowed the flanges on Valves G1 and G2\nto separate due to the pressure surge and served as a contributing cause of the Accident. Nothing\nin the record constitutes a good faith effort to comply prior to the accident.\nKinder Morgan neither contested the violation nor presented any information or arguments that\nwould warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $100,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b).\n\n\n\n7\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $100,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.422(a), for failing to ensure that a repair to its pipeline system was made in a\nsafe manner so as to prevent damage to persons or property. With respect to the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of this violation, recognizing and reacting to hazards is a key part of\nensuring adverse circumstances and hazardous situations do not deteriorate into accidents and\nemergencies. In this case, Respondent allowed the work crew to continue with its work even\nafter the crew became aware that the L6 Line was in operation, was under pressure, was\nreceiving a shipment of unleaded gasoline through the valve that was undergoing repair, and an\noxy-acetylene torch was being used 20 feet away. Respondent is culpable for the violation\nbecause it could have taken steps such as ensuring effective communications to facilitate the\nlikelihood of a safe repair but failed to do so. Nothing in the record constitutes a good faith\neffort to comply prior to the accident.\nKinder Morgan neither contested the violation nor presented any information or arguments that\nwould warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $100,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.422(a).\nAs discussed above, the record supports the assessment of penalties for all five Items as five\nseparate violations. In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria for each of the Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $500,000.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $500,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual\nrate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 3 and 4 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.402(a) and 195.406(b), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217,\nRespondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety\n\n\n\n8\nregulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.402(a) (Item 3), Respondent must develop\nprocedures for valve operation, maintenance, and repair in accordance with § 195.422\nthat incorporate “lessons learned” from the March 14, 2011 accident at the Carteret\nfacility. The procedures must include safety instructions for the repair of all valve\ntypes located at the Carteret facility including the incorporation of manufacturers’\nspecific recommended practices.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.406(b) (Item 4), Respondent must perform a\ncomprehensive surge analysis of the GANJ Manifold at the Carteret facility. Based\non the results, Kinder Morgan must make all necessary modifications to the GANJ\nManifold to account for potential surges. In addition, Respondent must test and\nverify that the manifold does not exceed 110 percent of the operating pressure limit\nestablished under the MOP for surges or other variations from normal operations.\n3. Within 150 calendar days following receipt of this Final Order, Respondent must\nsubmit a summary report and supporting documentation demonstrating completion of\nthe requirements set forth in this Order to Mr. Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region,\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Suite 103, 820 Bear Tavern\nRoad, West Trenton, NJ 08628.\n4. It is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the\nsafety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit\nthe total to the Director. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories:\n(1) total cost associated with preparation or revision of plans, procedures, studies, and\nanalyses; and (2) total cost associated with repairs, replacements, additions, and other\nchanges to physical pipeline facilities.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\n\n\n\n9\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a petition for reconsideration of\nthis Final Order [CPF No. 1-2013-5004]. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be\nsent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,\nSE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief\nCounsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA will accept petitions received no later than 20\ndays after receipt of service of this Final Order by the Respondent, provided they contain a brief\nstatement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a\npetition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate\nAdministrator, upon request, grants a stay, all other terms and conditions of this Final Order are\neffective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":29385}