{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220046010","title":"CYPRESS INTERSTATE PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2004-05-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.302(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220046010.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220046010.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220046010","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220046010","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving CYPRESS INTERSTATE PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.302(c). The case was opened on 2004-05-26 and is reported as closed as of 2010-04-07. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220046010_FinalOrder_04072010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220046010/220046010_FinalOrder_04072010.pdf\n\n220046010_FinalOrder_04072010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220046010/220046010_FinalOrder_04072010_text.pdf\n\n220046010_FinalOrder_04072010_text.pdf\n\nAPR 7 2010\nMr. Ron McClain\nVice President, Engineering & Operations\nKinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.\nOne Allen Center\n500 Dallas Street - Suite 1000\nHouston, TX 77002\nRE: CPF No. 2-2004-6010\nDear Mr. McClain:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the\nallegation of violation and closes the case. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed\neffective 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: Linda Daugherty, Director, Southern Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED[7009 1410 0000 2472 5347]\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 )\nKinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., ) CPF No. 2-2004-6010\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n__________________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn November 3-6, 2003, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),1\nSouthern Region, conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of\nKinder Morgan’s (Respondent or Kinder Morgan) Central Florida Pipeline in Tampa, Florida.\nRespondent operates a 195-mile refined petroleum products pipeline system, consisting of a 16-\ninch gasoline pipeline and a 10-inch jet fuel and diesel pipeline. These pipelines transport\nproduct from Tampa to Orlando, Florida.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter\ndated May 26, 2004, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice).\nIn accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent committed\na violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.302 and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to\ncorrect the alleged violation.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated June 22, 2004 (Response). Kinder Morgan\ncontested the allegation and requested a hearing. In a letter dated November 9, 2004, Respondent\nsubmitted a supplemental response to the Notice. A hearing was subsequently held on\nNovember 10, 2004, in Atlanta, Georgia, with Renita K. Bivins, an attorney from the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. After the hearing, the company provided additional written\nmaterial for the record by letter dated November 23, 2004.\n1 This case, however, is no longer before RSPA for decision. Effective February 20, 2005, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration was created to further the highest degree of safety in pipeline\ntransportation and hazardous materials transportation. See, section 108 of the Norman Y. Mineta Research and\nSpecial Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-426, 118 Stat. 2423-2429 (November 30, 2004)). See also, 70\nFed. Reg. 8299 (February 18, 2005), delegating the pipeline safety functions under the statute to the Administrator,\nPHMSA.\n\n\n\n2\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nItem 1A in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.302(c), which states:\n§ 195.302 General requirements.\n(a) . . .\n(c) Except for pipelines that transport HVL onshore, low-stress pipelines,\nand pipelines covered under § 195.303, the following compliance deadlines\napply to pipelines under paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)(i) of this section that\nhave not been pressure tested under this subpart:\n(1) Before December 7, 1998, for each pipeline each operator shall—\n(i) Plan and schedule testing according to this paragraph; or\n(ii) Establish the pipeline’s maximum operating pressure under\n§ 195.406(a)(5).\n(2) For pipelines scheduled for testing, each operator shall—\n(i) Before December 7, 2000, pressure test—\n(A) Each pipeline identified by name, symbol, or otherwise that existing\nrecords show contains more than 50 percent by mileage (length) of electric\nresistance welded pipe manufactured before 1970; and\n(B) At least 50 percent of the mileage (length) of all other pipelines; and\n(ii) Before December 7, 2003, pressure test the remainder of the pipeline\nmileage (length).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to maintain records in sufficient detail to demonstrate\nthat it operated its pipeline in accordance with § 195.302(c). At the time of the inspection,\nRespondent’s pressure test records indicated that it was operating the line without pressure\ntesting a segment of the Six Mile Creek Crossing (STA# 309+45 to 314+99, approximately 554\nfeet). At the time of the inspection, the documentation provided by Respondent only showed\nthat a hydrostatic test had been planned in 1973 on the Six Mile Creek Crossing, which was\ninsufficient to demonstrate that a pressure test had actually been performed. The Notice also\nalleged that Respondent did not provide the actual hydrostatic test records or any other\ndocumentation showing that the test had been performed.\nDuring the hearing and in its post-hearing submission, Respondent explained that although it did\nnot produce the logs or the recording chart of the pressure test, it had other supporting\ndocumentation to show that it had performed the hydrostatic test. Respondent explained its use\nof the Risk-Based Alternative to Pressure Testing Older Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide\nPipelines, as specified in 49 C.F.R § 195.303, to maintain compliance. Respondent posed that\n§ 195.303 allows a magnetic flux leakage (MFL) or ultrasonic internal inspection survey as an\nalternative to pressure testing on certain pipelines whose leak history and operating experience\ndo not indicate the presence of leaks caused by longitudinal cracks or seam failures. Respondent\nrequested that its alternative use of the risk-based approach specified in 49 C.F.R. § 195.303 be\ndeemed compliant.\n\n\n\n3\nOPS and Respondent discussed whether the Six Mile Creek Crossing satisfied all of the\nconditions required by § 195.303, including Appendix B. The parties also discussed whether, in\nthis instance, an MFL in-line inspection tool could be used as an alternative to the pressure\ntesting requirement of § 195.302. Respondent explained that it and the previous pipeline owner\nhad used this method as an alternative.\nThe Six Mile Creek Crossing was inspected by in-line low resolution MFL inspection tools in\ncalendar year 1994 and by high-resolution MFL inspection tools in 2000. The anomalies\ndiscovered during these MFL inspections did not meet the established repair criteria stipulated in\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4). Respondent had evaluated the anomalies, using American Society of\nMechanical Engineers’ Standard B31G, and determined that they did not warrant repairs.\nAlthough Respondent did not locate documents supporting the specific date that the pipe was\nmanufactured, Respondent did provide evidence that the pipe was post-1970 electric resistance\nwelded pipe and had been manufactured using High Frequency Electric Welded process.\nBased on this record, I find that Respondent did not perform a hydrostatic test as specified in 49\nCFR § 195.302 or develop a plan for method of testing and a schedule for the testing. However,\nRespondent did provide convincing documentation that supported its use of an alternative risk-\nbased approach to assess the integrity of the pipeline, as permitted under 49 C.F.R. § 195.303.\nAccordingly, I am withdrawing this allegation of violation.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a Compliance Order with regards to Item 1 of the Notice for violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 195.302(c). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. This allegation of\nviolation has been withdrawn, so no need exists to issue a compliance order.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":8881}