# CYPRESS INTERSTATE PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 320075007
- **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:** 2007-03-06
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.432(b), 195.432(c).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320075007.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320075007.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320075007
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320075007
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving CYPRESS INTERSTATE PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.432(b),  195.432(c). The case was opened on 2007-03-06 and is reported as closed as of 2012-07-25. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

320075007_Closure_07252012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075007/320075007_Closure_07252012.pdf

320075007_Closure_07252012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075007/320075007_Closure_07252012_text.pdf

320075007_FinalOrder_11162010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075007/320075007_FinalOrder_11162010.pdf

320075007_FinalOrder_11162010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075007/320075007_FinalOrder_11162010_text.pdf

320075007_Notice letter_03062007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075007/320075007_Notice%20letter_03062007.pdf

320075007_operator response to notice_04122007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075007/320075007_operator%20response%20to%20notice_04122007.pdf

320075007_Closure_07252012_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
July 25, 2012
Mr. Wes Christensen
Senior Vice President of Operations
ONEOK North System, LLC
100 West Fifth Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102
CPF 3-2007-5007
Dear Mr. Christensen:
On November 16, 2010, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to Kinder Morgan Energy Partners and ONEOK North System, LLC (ONEOK) a Final
Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order specifying actions
to be taken by ONEOK as the pipeline’s current owner and operator. On March 23, 2011,
ONEOK submitted documentation addressing the requirements of the Compliance Order.
Based on our review of the documentation you provided, it has been determined that you have
complied with the terms of this Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
David Barrett
Director, Central Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

320075007_Notice letter_03062007.pdf

MA,. 0 7 ";il?
@
U.S. Deportment
of Tronsporlqllon
Plpellne ond
Hozordous l oterlob Sotely
Admlnbtrofion
901 Locust Street, Suite 462
Kansas CiN. MO 64106-264'l
NOTICE OF' PROBABLE VIOLATION
AND
PROPOSED COMPLIAIICE ORDER
CERTIF'IED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED
March 6, 2007
Mr. Ron McClain
Vice President Operations
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.
500 Dallas Street, Suite 1000
Houston, TX77002
cPF 3-2007-5007
DearMr. McClain:
On April 4-8, April I l-15, April 25-29, and May 9-13, 2005, a representative of the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to chapter 601 of 49
United states code inspected your pipeline facilities in lllinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Indiana, and Nebraska.
As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and
the probable violations are:
1. $195.432 Breakout tanks.
(b) Each operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric
and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according to section 4
of API Standard 653, However, if structural conditions prevent access to the
tank bottom, the bottom integrity may be assessed according to a plan
included in the operations and maintenance manual under $195.402(c)(3).
Kinder Morgan has not conducted inspections of breakout tanks according to the
requirements of API Standard 653. The Lemont, IL and Monis, IL facilities have one
breakout tank each, spherical tanks with a maximum operating pressrue (MOP) of 10
psig. The tank at Lemont was built in1967 and the tank at Morris was built in1975,







7
with both tanks constructed to API Standard 620, "Design and Construction of Large,
Welded, Low-Pressure Storage Tanks." Since the tanks were constructed per API
620,they are low-pressure breakout tanks that require inspection according to API
653 as stated in $195.432(b). Kinder Morgan inspected these two tanks according to
its breakout tank inspection procedure, "Operating Manual Maintenance Inspection of
Storage Tanks and Vessels, Section III, number 03-02," which does not address all the
requirements listed under Section 4 ofAPI 653. For example, as referenced by
$195.432(b), API 653 specifies tank shell evaluation including shell wall thickness
measurements, corrosion rate calculations, and intemal tank inspections, but these
items were not addressed in Kinder Morgan's procedures. Therefore, the two low-
pressure breakout tanks at Lemont, IL and Monis, IL have not been inspected
according to API 653 as required by $ 195.a320). See Exhibit # I for the
identification of the two breakout tanks.
$195.432 Breakout tanks.
(c) Each operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-service steel
aboveground breakout tanks built to API Standard 2510 according to
section 6 of API510.
Kinder Morgan has not conducted inspections of breakout tanks according to the
requirements of API 510. The Lemont, IL facility has one breakout tank, a spherical
tank with a MOP of 125 psig. The Morris, IL facility has 27 breakout tanks as
follows: three spherical tanks with MOP's ranging from 50 to 80 psig, and 24 bullet-
type tanks each with a MOP of 250 psig. The Des Moines, IA facility has one
breakout tank, a bullet-type tank with a MOP of 3 12 psig. The Wichita, KS facility
has four breakout tanks, spherical tanks with MOP's ranging from 40 to 60 psig.
Each of these 33 breakout tanks were constructed per the ASME pressure vessel code,
from the years 1963 to 1990.
Editions of the API Standard 2510, "Design and Construction of LPG Installations,"
including the ls edition of June 1957, state that tanks constructed per API 2510 shall
meet the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Since these 33
breakout tanks are ASME pressure vessels, they meet the tank design and
construction standards ofthe prior editions ofAPI Standard 2510, and require
inspection per API 510 as stated in $195.432(c).
Kinder Morgan inspects these 33 breakout tanks according to its breakout tank
inspection procedure, "Operating Manual Maintenance Inspection of Storage Tanks
and Vessels, Section III, number 03-02," which does not address all the requirements
listed under secfion 6 of API 5 10. For example, as referenced by $ I 95.432(c), API
510 specifies tank shell evaluation including shell wall thickness measutements,
corrosion rate calculations, and intemal tank inspection, but these items were not
addressed in Kinder Morgan's procedures. Therefore, the 33 breakouttanks located
at Lemont, Morris, Des Moines, and Wichita have not been inspected according to
APl5l0asrequiredby$195.a32(c). SeeExhibit#2fortheidentificationofthe33
breakout tanks.







Proposed Compliance Order
Pursuant to 49 United States Code $ 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Kinder Morgan Energy Partners,
L.P. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order thatis enclosed and made a part of this
Notice.
Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response options for pipeline
Operators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response
options. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is
subject to being made publicly available. Ifyou believe that any portion ofyour responsive
material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete
original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you
believe qualift for confidential heatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the
redacted infotmation qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552@). If you do not
respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to
contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline
Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue j finA
Order.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to cPF 3-2007-5007 and for each
document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
ffi.ws-
Director, Central Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings







PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code $ 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Kinder Morgan Energy partners, L.p.
a compliance order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the
compliance of Kinder Morgan Energy parnrers, L.p. with the pipeline safety regulations:
1- In regard to Item Number I of the Notice pertaining to the inspection of two low-
pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks per section 4 of ApI 653, provide pHMSA
with a plan, schedule, and procedures to inspect these tanks. At a minimum the plan
shall include performing an intemal inspect'ron for each tank. The procedures that
will be utilized to inspect the tanks shall be fully documented and provide a
description of how each element required by API 653 is to be accomplished. Submit
the plan, schedule, and procedures to the Director, central Region, pipeline and
Hazardous Materials safety Administration, 901 Locust streel Room 462, Kansas
City, MO 64t06.
2' In regard to Item Number 2 of theNotice periaining to the inspection of 33 breakout
tanks per section 6 of ApI 510, provide PHMSA with a plan, schedule, and
procedures to inspect tl-rese tanks. The plan shall includi performing an intemal
inspection of each tank. The procedures that will be utilized to insp'ect the tanks shall
be fully documentedand prwide a descripfion of how each element required by ApI
510 is to be accomplished. Submit the plan, schedule, and procedwes to the Director,
Central Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safef Alministration, 901 Locust
Street, Room 462, Kansas City, MO 64106.
3. The proposed inspection plans, schedules, and procedures in ltems I and 2 ofthe
compliance order shall be submitted to the Diiector, central Region, pipeline and
Hazardous Materials saf€ty Administration within 60 days folloiing Kinder
f4ol8an's receipt of the Final Order. The proposed intemal inspectilns in Items I and
2 of the compliance order shall be compreted within 2 y"*, oiyo* r"ceipt of the
Final Order.
4' As intemal inspections are completed for each tank, a report for each tank shall be
prepared and submitted to the Director, central Region that includes, but is not
limited to, the following: records of the inspection results, third party inspection
recommendations, any resulting repairs or alterations, and other irndings and
outcomes of the inspections. When all appropriate actions have been completed in
regard to the above-items in this compliance order, submit a surnmary report and
notice of completed actions to the Director, Central Region, Pipeline and Hazardous
Malerials safety Administration, 901 Locust street, Room 462, Kansas city, Mo
64106.
5' Kinder Morgan shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs
associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director,







Cenhal Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Costs shall
be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparationirevision of
plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost ofreplacement, additions,
and other changes to the pipeline iafrastructure







Exhibit # I
2005 PHMSA Standard lnsoection
Kinder Morgan Breakout Tanks thai require inspection
in according to the requirements ofAPl Standard 653
Item LOCATION
NAME/TAG # Type of Tank
LEMONT
1 GASOLINE TK.
MORRIS
GASOLINE TK.
Sphere
Sphere
Exhibil # 2
2005 PHMSA Standard InsDection
Kinder Morgan Breakout Tanks that require inspection
in according to the requirements ofAPl 510
Item
#
LOCATION NAME/TAG # Type of Tank
1 LEMONT SLOP TK, Sphere
4
o
7
I
U
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 a
1 4
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
24
ZJ
26
27
28
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
MORRIS
TK. #1
TK. #2
TK. #3
TK. #4
TK. #5
TK. #6
TK. #7
TK. #8
TK. #9
TK. #10
rK. #11
TK, #12
TK. #13
TK. #14
TK. #15
TK. #16
TK. #17
TK. #18
ISO BUTANE TK,
BUTANE TK. #1
BUTANE TK. #2
PROPYLENE TK, #1
PROPYLENE TK. #2
PROPYLENE TK. #3
PROPYLENE TK. #4
PROPYLENE TK. #5
PROPYLENE TK- #6
Bullet
Bullet
Buliet
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Sphere
Sphere
Sphere
Bullet
Bullet
Bullet
Eullet
Bullet
Bullet
29 DES MOINES BUTANE BLEND TK. Bullet
30
31
32
?a
WICHITA
WICHITA
WICHITA
WICHITA
T-201A
T-201 B
T-204
Sphere
Sphere
Sphere
Sphere
Charts made by Judy Johnson, PHMSA Cenhal Region's Staff Engineer, from dala provided by Kinder Morgan.







Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
The requirements of 49C.F.R. Part 190, Subpart B ($$ 190.201-lg0-237) govem response ro
Iqli":l issued by a Regional Director, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Saffl Administration
(PHMSA).
I. Procedures for Respondins to a NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION:
Within 30 days of receipt of a Notice of Probable Violation, the respondent shall respond
to the Regional Director who issued the Notice in the following way:
a. When the Notice contains a proposed CIVIL PENALTY* --
l. Pay the proposed civil penalty and advise the Regional Director of the
pa),rnent. This authorizes PHMSA to make findings and to close the case
with prejudice to the respondent. Payment terms are outlined below;
2. Submit written explanations, information, or other materials in response to
the allegations and/or seek eliminati6n or mitigation of the proposed civil
penalty. Refer to 49 C.F.R. S 190.225 for assessment considerations,
which include the respondent's ability to pay and the effect on the
respondent's ability to stay in business, upon which civil penalties are
based; or
3. Request a hearing as described below to contest the allegations and/or
proposed assessment ofa civil penalty.
b. When the Notice contains apronosed COMPLIANCE ORDER* -
1. Notiff the Regional Director that you intend to take the steps in the
proposed compliance order;
Submit written explanations, information, or other materials in answer to
the allegations in the Notice and object to or seek clarification of the
proposed compliance order items in whole or in part; or
a
Request a hearing as described below to contest the allegations and/or
proposed compliance order items;
c.
When the Notice contains a IYARITIING ITEM --
No written response is required. The respondent is warned that if it does not
take appropriate action to correct these items, enforcement action will be
taken ifa subsequent inspection reveals a violation.
1of 5







il.
UL
IV.
* Failure of the respondent to respond to the Notice within 30 days of receipt
constitutes a waiver of the right to contest the allegations in the Notice and authorizes
the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in the Notice
without further notice to the respondent and to issue a Final Order.
,,
Procedures for Resnondine to a NOTICE OF AMENDMENT*-
Within 30 days of receipt of a Notice of Amendment, the respondent shall respond to the
Regional Directorwho issued the Notice in the following way:
Notifu the Regional Director of your plans to address the inadequacies
identified in the Notice;
b.
Submit written explanations, information, or other materials in answer to the
allegations in the Notice and/or object to or seek clarification ofthe proposed
amendment items in whole or in part; or
c.
Request a hearing as described below to con{est the allegations in the Notice.
* Failure of the respondent to respond to the Notice within 30 days of receipt
constitutes a waiver of the right to contest the allegations in the Notice and authorizes
the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in the Notice
without firrther notice to the respondent and to issue a Final Order.
Procedure for Rpquestinq a Hearins
A request for a hearing must be in writing and accompanied by a statement of the issues
whioh the respondent intends to raise at the hearing. The issues may relate to the
allegations, new information, or to the proposed compliance order or proposed civil
penalty amount. Refer to 49 C.F.R. $ 190.225 for assessment considerations upon which
civil penalties are based. A respondent's failure to specify an issue may result in waiver
ofthe right to raise that issue at the hearing. The respondent's request must also indicate
whether or not respondent will be represented by counsel at the hearing. Failure to
request a hearing in writing within 30 days of receipt of a Notice waives the right to a
hearing. In addition, if the amount of the proposed civil penalty or the proposed
corrective action is less than $10,000, the hearing will be held by telephone, unless the
respondent submits a written request for an in-person hearing. Complete hearing
procedwes can be found at 49 C.F.R. $ 190.21 l.
Extensions of Time
An extension of time to prepare an appropriate resporuie to a Notice may be granted, at
the agency's discretion, following submittal of a written request to the Regional Director.
The request must indicate the amount of time needed and the reasons for the extension.
The request must be submitted within 30 days of receipt of the Notice.
2of5







V. Freedom of Information Act
Any material prepared by PHMSA, including the violation report, the Notice, and any
order issued in this case, and any material provided to PHMSA by the respondent, may
be considered public information and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). If the information you provide. is security sefsitive, privileged,
confidential or may cause your company competitive disadvantages, please clearly
identiff the material and provide justification why the documents, or portions of a
document, should not be released under FOIA. If we receive a request for your material,
we will notiSr you if PHMSA, after reviewing the materials and your provided
justification, determines that withholding the materials does not meet any exemption
provided under the FOIA. You may appeal the agency's decision to release material
under the FOIA at that time. Your appeal will stay the release of those materials until a
final decision is made.
u.
Small Business Resulatory Enforcement Fairness Act Information
The Small Business and Agricultural Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and l0
Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments from small businesses
about federal_agency enforcement actions. The Onrbudsman will annually evaluate the
enforcement activities and rate each agency's responsiveness to small business. Ifyou
wish to comment on the enforcement actions of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (l-888-734-3247) or go to
http ://www. sba. gov/ombudsman/dsp_faq.html.
3 of 5







VU. PAYMENTINSTRUCTIONS
Civil Penatty Puyments of Less Than $10,000
,,.
Paynent ofa civil penalty ofless than $10,000 proposed or assessed, under Subpart B ofPart
190 of the Pipeline Safety Regulations can be made by certified check, money order or wire
transfer. Payment by certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number for this case)
should be made payable to the "Department of Transportation" and should be sent to:
Federal Aviation Administration
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center
Financial Operations Division (AMZ-300) P.O. Box 25082
Oklahoma City, OK 73125-4915
wire transfer payrnents of less than $10,000 may be made through the Federal Reserve
Communications System (Fedwire) to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are
provided below. Questions concerning wire transfer should be directed to the Financial
Operations Division at (405) 954-8893, or at the above address.
Civil Penalty Payments of 910,000 or more
Payment ofa civil penalty of$10,000 or more proposed or assessed under Subpart B ofPart 190
of the Pipeline Safety Regulations must be made wire transfer (49 C.F.R. $ 89.21 (bX3),
through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire) to the account of the U.S.
Treasury. Detailed instructions are provided below. Questions concerning wire transfers should
be directed to the Financial Operations Division at (405) 954-8893, or at the above address.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC T'UND TRANSFERS
(1) RECEIVERABANO.
021030004
(2) TYPE/SUB-TYPE
(Provided by sending bank)
(3) SENpTNGBANKABANO.
(Provided by sending bank) (4) SENDTNG BANK REF NO.
@rovided by sending bank)
(5)AMOUNT (6) SENDINGBANKNAME
(Provided by sending bank)
(7) RECEMRNAME
TREASNYC
(8) PROpUCT COpE
(Normally CTR, or as provided by sending
bank)
(9) BENEFICIAL GNF) = AGENCY
LOCATION CODE
BNF = /ALC-69-14-0001
(10) REASONS FOR PAYMENT
Example: PHMSA - CPF # / Ticket
Number/Pipeline Assessment number
4 of5







INSTRUCTIONS: You, as sender of the wire transfer, must provide the sending bank with the
information for blocks (1), (5), (7),(9), and (10). The information provided in Blocks (1), (7),
and (9) are constant andremain the same for all wire transfers to the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, Department of Transportation.
;
Block#1 - RECEIVER ABA NO. - "021030004". Ensure the sending bank enters this 9-digit
identification number; it represents the routing symbol for the U.S. Treasury at the Federal
Reserve Bank inNew York.
Block #5 - AMOUNT - You as the sender provide the amount of the transfer. Please be sure the
ffansfer amount is punctuated with commas and a decimal point. EXAMPLD: $10.000.00
Block #7 - RECEIVER NAME - "TREAS NYC", Ensure the sending bank enters this
abbreviation. It must be used for all wire tansfers to the Treasury Departrnent.
Block#9 -BENEFICIAL - AGENCY LOCATION CODE - "BNF=/ALC-69-14-0001". Ensure
the sending bank enters this information. This is the Agency Location Code for the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Department of Transportation,
Block #10 - REASON FOR PAYMENT - "AC-payment for PHMSA Case # / To ensure your
wire transfer is credited properly, enter the case number/ticket number or Pipeline Assessment number,
and counfil."
NOTE: A wire transfer must comply with the format and instructions or the Department cannot
accept the wire transfer. You as the iender can assist this process by notifying the Financial
Operations Division (405) 954-8893 at the time you send the wire transfer.
November 2006
) o I )

320075007_FinalOrder_11162010_text.pdf

NOV 16 2010
Mr. Ron McClain
Vice President, Operations
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.
500 Dallas Street, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77002
Mr. Wes Christensen
Senior Vice President, NGL Operations
ONEOK North System, L.L.C.
100 West 5th Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
Re: CPF No. 3-2007-5007
Dear Mr. McClain and Mr. Christensen:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation and specifies actions that need to be taken by the pipeline’s current owner and operator,
ONEOK North System, L.L.C., to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms
of the compliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director, Central Region,
this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed
effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. David Barrett, Director, Central Region, PHMSA
CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0041 0633 &
0862]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. ) CPF No. 3-2007-5007
and )
ONEOK North System, L.L.C., )
)
)
)
)
Respondents. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On April 4-8, 11-15, and 25-29, and May 9-13, 2005, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a
representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office
of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and
records of the North System pipelines then operated by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.
(Kinder Morgan), in Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska, later acquired by
ONEOK North System, L.L.C.(ONEOK). The North System is comprised of approximately
1629 miles of pipelines carrying refined petroleum products and highly volatile liquids.
1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Kinder
Morgan, by letter dated March 6, 2007, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed
Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed
finding that Kinder Morgan had violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432 and proposed ordering Kinder
Morgan to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
Kinder Morgan responded by letter dated April 12, 2007 (Response). Kinder Morgan contested
the allegations, but submitted a plan for satisfying the Proposed Compliance Order. The Director
replied to Kinder Morgan on July 13, 2007, and rejected its proposed plan finding it inconsistent
with the terms of the Proposed Compliance Order.
Kinder Morgan notified PHMSA on August 10, 2007, of its plan to sell its North System pipeline
facilities to ONEOK and suggested that ONEOK, rather than Kinder Morgan, should have the
opportunity to respond in relation to the Proposed Compliance Order in the Notice. PHMSA had
no objection and provided ONEOK with the opportunity to respond to the Notice.
1 On October 5, 2007, ONEOK North System, L.L.C. (ONEOK), acquired the North System from Kinder Morgan
and became the operator of this system. ONEOK is a subsidiary of ONEOK Partners, L.P.



2
ONEOK responded to the Notice by letter dated December 12, 2007, in which it confirmed its
acquisition of Kinder Morgan’s North System and that it had received Notice of this ongoing
compliance proceeding in connection with the acquisition and reserved its right to a hearing.
ONEOK also provided information to PHMSA on its efforts to satisfy the terms of the Proposed
Compliance Order and requested a meeting. OPS regional staff met with ONEOK on July 31,
2009 at which time ONEOK submitted a proposed plan and schedule to satisfy the Proposed
Compliance Order. ONEOK withdrew its request for a hearing by e-mail dated
December 17, 2009, and thereby waived its right to a hearing.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Kinder Morgan violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), which states:
§ 195.432 – Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.
(a) . . . .
(b) Each operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-service
atmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according
to section 4 of API Standard 653. However, if structural conditions
prevent access to the tank bottom, the bottom integrity may be assessed
according to a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual
under § 195.402(c)(3).
The Notice alleged that Kinder Morgan violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to inspect the
physical integrity of two in-service low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks, one in
Lemont, Illinois, and the other in Morris, Illinois, in accordance with API Standard 653.2
Specifically, the Notice alleged that although inspections of these tanks were performed, the
procedure used to perform the inspections did not meet the requirements of API Standard 653.
API Standard 653 requires shell wall thickness measurements every five years, routine monthly
in-service inspections, and scheduled internal inspections, but Kinder Morgan’s internal
procedure, entitled “Operating Manual Maintenance Inspection of Storage Tanks and Vessels,
Section III, number 03-02,” did not contain these requirements.
In its Response, Kinder Morgan acknowledged that it had not carried out internal inspections of
tanks, which are required by API Standard 653, but contended that it was not out of compliance
because the inspections of these tanks were governed by § 195.432(a) and its procedures
conformed to § 195.432(a). I find this argument unpersuasive. Section 195.432(a) does not
apply to the breakout tanks at issue. These tanks are in-service low-pressure steel aboveground
breakout tanks and therefore must be inspected as provided in § 195.432(b) and (c). Thus,
§ 195.432(a) is irrelevant.
2 Section 195.432(b) provides that operators must inspect certain tanks according to section 4 of API Standard 653.
However, Section 6, not Section 4, now contains the relevant provisions relating to inspections of the in-service
breakout tanks described in Item 1. As PHMSA explained in a letter to Kinder Morgan dated July 13, 2007, API
Standard 653 was revised in 1999, and the revised version was subsequently incorporated by reference into the
Pipeline Safety Regulations. Section 4 of the earlier version addressed inspections, while inspections are covered by
Section 6 of the revised standard.



3
Kinder Morgan further argued that under API Standard 653 it was not required to carry out the
tank inspections until 2009. It based this argument on § 195.432(d), which states that inspection
intervals for inspections required under § 195.432(b) and (c) “begin on May 3, 1999, or on the
operator’s last recorded date of inspection, whichever is earlier.” I find this argument
unpersuasive. API Standard 653 requires internal inspections of tanks every ten years. The
regulation thus requires an operator to identify the date of the last inspection and schedule
another inspection within ten years of that date. Unless the company can substantiate that the
tanks were not previously inspected, the company is not permitted to calculate the inspection
deadline for its tanks simply by adding ten years to May 3, 1999. This approach would be
inconsistent with the requirements of API Standard 653 and the regulations.
Finally, Kinder Morgan argued that its procedures did require tank wall thickness to be measured
every five years consistent with API Standard 653. However, Kinder Morgan’s procedures
required such measurements only for tanks in corrosive service, while API Standard 653 requires
wall thickness measurements of all tanks, whether in corrosive service or not.
Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Kinder Morgan violated 49
C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to inspect the physical integrity of the two specified in-service
low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks in accordance with API Standard 653.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Kinder Morgan violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(c), which states:
§ 195.432 – Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.
(a) . . . .
(c) Each operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-service steel
aboveground breakout tanks built to API Standard 2510 according to
section 6 of API 510.
The Notice alleged that Kinder Morgan violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(c) by failing to inspect the
physical integrity of certain in-service steel aboveground breakout tanks built to API Standard
2510 according to section 6 of API Standard 510. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Kinder
Morgan inspected 33 breakout tanks, in Lemont, Illinois; Morris, Illinois; Des Moines, Iowa; and
Wichita, Kansas, according to the company’s relevant internal procedure, and that this procedure
did not meet the requirements of API Standard 510. API Standard 510 provides that tank
inspections should include shell wall thickness measurements, corrosion calculations, and
scheduled internal inspections, but Kinder Morgan’s internal procedure, which is the same one
referenced in Item 1, did not include these requirements.
In its Response, Kinder Morgan acknowledged that it did not carry out internal inspections of the
tanks but contended that it was not required to inspect the 33 specified tanks according to API
Standard 510 because the tanks were not built to API Standard 2510. Kinder Morgan argued that
tanks built in conformity with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code) do not
automatically need to meet the requirements of API Standard 2510. I find this argument
unpersuasive. Because the tanks were built according to ASME Code, and because API
Standard 2510 requires that breakout tanks be built according to that code, the tanks at issue
were built according to API Standard 2510. There is no evidence that API Standard 2510
contains any requirements with respect to the construction of breakout tanks other than that they



4
be built according to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Code. Therefore, any tank built according
to the ASME Code was built in conformity with API Standard 2510. Accordingly, these tanks
were built in conformity with API Standard 2510 and were required to be inspected according to
API Standard 510.
Kinder Morgan further argued that it was not required to carry out the tank inspections until
2009. It presented the same argument it advanced in Item 1 with respect to the inspection
deadline. For the reasons discussed above, in the absence of evidence that the tanks were not
previously inspected, the regulations do not permit Kinder Morgan to calculate the inspection
deadline for its tanks simply by adding ten years to May 3, 1999.
Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Kinder Morgan violated 49
C.F.R. § 195.432(c) by failing to inspect the physical integrity of specific in-service steel
aboveground breakout tanks in accordance with section 6 of API Standard 510.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Kinder Morgan.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for the
violations of 49 C.F.R. § 195.432. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the
transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to
comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. In its letter of July
31, 2009, ONEOK expressed its intent to complete the actions set forth in the proposed
compliance order and described the actions it had initiated thus far. These actions included:
1. ONEOK submitted a plan and schedule to inspect the tanks described in Items 1 and 2
(Plan). As to the tanks discussed in Item 1, the Plan provided for inspections consistent
with API Standard 653. As to the tanks discussed in Item 2, the Plan provided for
inspections consistent with API Standard 510.
2. ONEOK has completed the tank inspections described in the Plan.
ONEOK has thus partially satisfied the proposed compliance order, but not all aspects of the
proposed compliance order are fully completed. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority of 49
U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, ONEOK is ordered to take the following actions to
ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations3 :
1. ONEOK must submit copies of the written procedures it used to conduct the tank
inspections.
3 As the current operator, it is now ONEOK’s responsibility to bring the facilities into compliance with the
regulations and complete the terms of the Compliance Order.



5
2. ONEOK must submit to the Director, Central Region, tank inspection reports for the
inspections that it carried out pursuant to the Plan. Such reports must include, at a
minimum, records of inspection results, third-party inspection recommendations, any
resulting repairs or alterations, and other findings and outcomes of the inspections.
3. ONEOK must submit a summary report and notice of completed actions to the Director,
Central Region including all required documentation within 6 months of receipt of this
Final Order.
4. ONEOK must maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with
fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director, Central Region.
Costs must be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with
preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies, and analyses, and 2) total cost
associated with replacements, additions, and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request demonstrating good cause for an extension.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not
to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the
Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a petition for reconsideration of
this Final Order. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be sent to: Associate
Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building,
2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at
the same address. PHMSA will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of
service of this Final Order by the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the
issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. Unless the Associate
Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, the terms and conditions of this Final Order are
effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
___________________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 38423