{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220115002","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":"2011-02-16","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(h)(2), 195.452(h)(4)(ii)(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220115002.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220115002.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220115002","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220115002","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving CYPRESS INTERSTATE PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(h)(2),  195.452(h)(4)(ii)(b). The case was opened on 2011-02-16 and is reported as closed as of 2011-06-09. Proposed civil penalty: $65,000. Assessed civil penalty: $65,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220115002_Final Order_06092011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115002/220115002_Final%20Order_06092011.pdf\n\n220115002_Final Order_06092011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115002/220115002_Final%20Order_06092011_text.pdf\n\n220115002_NOPV_PCP_02162011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115002/220115002_NOPV_PCP_02162011.pdf\n\n220115002_NOPV_PCP_02162011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115002/220115002_NOPV_PCP_02162011_text.pdf\n\n220115002_Operator Response to Notice_03112011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220115002/220115002_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_03112011.pdf\n\n220115002_Final Order_06092011_text.pdf\n\nJUN 9 2011\n`\nMr. Ron McClain\nVice President, Operations & Engineering\nKinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.\n500 Dallas Street, Suite 1000\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 2-2011-5002\nDear Mr. McClain:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $65,000. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of\nthe full penalty amount, by wire transfer, dated March 3, 2011. This enforcement action is now\nclosed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing,\nor 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. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, Pipeline Safety\nMr. Wayne T. Lemoi, Director, Southern Region, PHMSA\nMr. Charles E. Fox, Vice President, Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, L.P.\n500 Dallas Street, Suite 1000, Houston, TX 77002\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0075 9367]\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 Energy Partners, L.P., ) CPF No. 2-2011-5002\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn June 14-18, June 28 - July 2, July 12-15, and July 27-30, 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of\ncertain integrity management programs of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (KMEP or\nRespondent), in Houston, Texas; Orange, California; Alpharetta, Georgia; and Iowa City, Iowa.\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA inspectors discovered an alleged violation in a High\nConsequence Area (HCA),1 on the Wink to Guadalupe Pipeline system (Wink Pipeline), which\nis operated by Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, L.P (KMCO2).\ninclude approximately 9,581 miles of interstate pipelines, 5,350 miles of which are covered\nsegments in HCAs.\n2 KMEP’s gas pipeline systems\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated February 16, 2011, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCivil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding\nthat KMEP had violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $65,000\nfor the alleged violation.\nKMCO2 and KMEP responded to the Notice by letter dated March 10, 2011, as supplemented by\nletter dated March 11, 2011 (collectively, Response).\n3\nThe company did not contest the\n1 A “High Consequence Area” or “HCA” is an area defined as either a commercially navigable waterway or a\nwaterway where a substantial likelihood of commercial navigation exists; a high population area or urbanized area,\nas defined in 49 C.F.R. § 195.450 (2); an other populated area or a place that contains a concentrated population, as\ndefined in 49 C.F.R. § 195.450 (3); or an unusually sensitive area, as defined in 49 C.F.R. § 195.450 (4).\n2 See http://www.kindermorgan.com/investor/KMP_2010_annual_report_financials.pdf. (last accessed May 5,\n2011)\n3 KMEP’s March 11, 2011 response letter stated that KMCO2 owned and operated the Wink Pipeline and that it\nwould directly provide a substantive response to the Notice. However, KMCO2’s integrity management program is\nunder the auspices of KMEP’s corporate integrity management program.\n\n\n\n2\nallegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $65,000, as provided in 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.227. Payment of the penalty serves to close the case with prejudice to Respondent.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, KMEP did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 195, as follows:\nItem 1A: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(2), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) . . .\n(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n(1) . . .\n(2) Discovery of condition. Discovery of a condition occurs when an\noperator has adequate information about the condition to determine that\nthe condition presents a potential threat to the integrity of the pipeline. An\noperator must promptly, but no later than 180 days after an integrity\nassessment, obtain sufficient information about a condition to make that\ndetermination, unless the operator can demonstrate that the 180-day period\nis impracticable.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(2) by failing to obtain and\nuse information from an assessment to make a determination that a condition presented a\npotential threat to the integrity of the pipeline, within 180 days of the assessment. Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that KMEP completed an integrity assessment on May 9, 2008, but did not\nobtain sufficient information to make a determination of discovery that a “60 day condition”\nexisted until March 30, 2009, or 325 days following the completion of the assessment and 180\ndays past the regulatory deadline. The Notice further alleged that Respondent failed to show that\nthe 180-day period was impracticable in this case.\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. § 195.452(h)(2) by failing to obtain\nsufficient information about a condition within 180 days following completion of its May 9,\n2008 integrity assessment.\nItem 1B: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(ii)(B), which\nstates:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) . . .\n(1) . . .\n(i) . . .\n(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n(4) Special requirements for scheduling remediation-\n(ii) 60-day conditions. Except for conditions listed in paragraph\n\n\n\n3\n(h)(4)(i) of this section, an operator must schedule evaluation and\nremediation of the following conditions within 60 days of discovery of\ncondition.\n(A) . . .\n(B) A dent located on the bottom of the pipeline that has any\nindication of metal loss, cracking or a stress riser.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(ii)(B) by failing to\nschedule evaluation and remediation within 60 days of conducting a March 30, 2009 assessment\nthat identified a dent on the bottom of a pipeline segment. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\non March 30, 2009, KMEP discovered a dent that indicated metal loss on a portion of the Wink\nPipeline located in an HCA.\npipeline that has any indication of metal loss” must be remediated within 60 days of discovery.\nKMEP failed to remediate until June 27, 2010, or 394 days past the regulatory deadline.\n4 Pursuant to regulation, “a dent located on the bottom of the\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. § 195.452(h)(4)(ii)(B) by failing to\nschedule an evaluation and remediation of a 60-day condition within the regulatory timeframe.\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a total civil penalty of $65,000, which has already been paid by Respondent.\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\n4 “KMEP records described it as a ‘deformation anomaly dent-detected w/ metal loss’ on the bottom of the pipeline\n(6:09 position).” Pipeline Safety Violation Report, at 6.","truncated":false,"body_characters":9077}