# CYPRESS INTERSTATE PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 320075020
- **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:** 2007-07-02
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.583(b).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320075020.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320075020.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320075020
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320075020
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving CYPRESS INTERSTATE PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.583(b). The case was opened on 2007-07-02 and is reported as closed as of 2009-12-23. Proposed civil penalty: $133,000. Assessed civil penalty: $133,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

320075020_Final Order_12232009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075020/320075020_Final%20Order_12232009.pdf

320075020_Final Order_12232009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075020/320075020_Final%20Order_12232009_text.pdf

320075020_notice letter_07022007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075020/320075020_notice%20letter_07022007.pdf

320075020_notice letter_07022007_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075020/320075020_notice%20letter_07022007_text.pdf

320075020_Operator Response_08022007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075020/320075020_Operator%20Response_08022007.pdf

320075020_Final Order_12232009_text.pdf

DEC 23 2009
Mr. Dwayne M. Burton
Vice President
Gas Pipeline Operations and Engineering
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.
One Allen Center
500 Dallas Street, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF No. 3-2007-5020
Dear Mr. Burton:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of
violation and assesses a civil penalty of $133,000. I acknowledge receipt of your wire transfer of
$133,000 on August 2, 2007, and accept it as payment in full of the civil penalty assessed herein.
This case is now closed. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document
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. Ivan Huntoon, Director, Central Region, PHMSA
CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 0390 0005 6162 5240]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, DC 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., ) CPF No. 3-2007-5020
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On July 2, 2007, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Director, Central Region, Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), issued to Respondent a Notice of
Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice) following an investigation of the August
12, 2006 failure involving Kinder Morgan’s (Kinder Morgan or Respondent) 8” Pipeline 106W.
The failure occurred at an above-ground crossing of the Des Plaines River near Lemont, Will
County, Illinois. Kinder Morgan is one of the largest pipeline transportation companies in North
America, with more than 37,000 miles of natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines.
The Notice proposed finding that Respondent committed a violation of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and
assessing a civil penalty of $133,000 for the alleged violation. Respondent responded to the
Notice by letter dated August 2, 2007. Respondent submitted a wire transfer in the amount of
the proposed civil penalty ($133,000), thereby waiving further rights to respond and authorizing
the entry of this Final Order.
Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.213 and 49 U.S.C. § 60122, I hereby find that Respondent violated
the following section of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as more fully described in the Notice:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(b),
which states:
§ 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?
(a) ….
(b) During inspections you must give particular attention to pipe
at soil-to-air interfaces, under thermal insulation, under disbonded
coatings, at pipe supports, in splash zones, at deck penetrations, and in
spans over water.



2
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(b) by failing, during the
company’s regular inspections for atmospheric corrosion, to give particular attention to spans
over water. Specifically, it alleged that Kinder Morgan failed to identify corrosion pitting
requiring repair during the March 7, 2006 atmospheric corrosion inspection at the pipe support
on the Des Plaines River bridge.
This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action
taken against Respondent.
Although Respondent submitted a wire transfer in the amount of the proposed penalty thereby
waiving its right to contest the Notice, the company still took issue with the amount of the
penalty. It raised several questions regarding the criteria and data used by PHMSA to determine
the penalty amount. First, it argued that PHMSA neither objected to the company’s procedures
for assessing atmospheric corrosion nor cited it for failing to follow such procedures. Instead,
PHMSA cited the company for failing to properly classify and correct the corrosion that had
been discovered during a routine inspection. Second, Respondent contended that Kinder
Morgan’s North System, where the failure occurred, had only been cited for one prior safety
violation within the last five years. Third, it argued that while there was a release of product
(i.e., 1,419 barrels of butane) as a result of the failure, there had been no ignition, personal injury,
or property damage.
I reject Respondent’s arguments that the penalty is excessive. On the contrary, the accident
investigation and Violation Report make clear that Kinder Morgan’s own personnel failed in
March 2006 to give particular attention to the corrosion discovered at the failure site and to
properly classify it in accordance with the company’s own procedures. The fact that Kinder
Morgan suffered a failure at this same location six months later demonstrates the need for
operators to pay particular attention to the presence of corrosion on bridges and other spans over
water. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $133,000, which amount has already been paid.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be effective upon receipt.
___________________________________ ____________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

320075020_notice letter_07022007_text.pdf

U. S. Department
of Transportation
t lpetine and
Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration
901 Locust Street, Suite 462
Kansas City, MO 64106-2641
NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
AND
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED
July 2, 2007
Mr. M. Dwayne Burton
V. P. Gas Pipeline Operations and Engineering
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, Inc.
500 Dallas St. (One Allen Center)
Houston, TX 77002
CPF 3-2007-5020
Dear Mr. Burton:
On August 14, 2006, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, conducted an
investigation of the August 12, 2006 failure involving the 8" Pipeline 106W operated by
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L. P. (KMEP). The failure occurred in the pipeline as a
rupture at a pipe support in an above-ground bridge crossing of the Des Plaines River near
Lemont in Will County, Illinois.
As a result of the investigation, it appears that you have committed a probable violation, as
noted below, of pipeline safety regulations Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 195.
The item investigated and the probable violation is:
1. $195. 583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion?
(b) During inspections you must give particular attention to pipe at soil-to-air
interfaces, under thermal insulation, under disbonded coatings, at pipe
supports, in splash zones, at deck penetrations, and in spans over water.



KMEP did not identify corrosion pitting requiring repair on the pipeline that failed in the
above-ground bridge crossing of the Des Plaines River during its March 7, 2006 inspection
for atmospheric corrosion. Although the inspection of, this overhead span crossing was within
the inspection time-interval allowed by $195. 583, paragraph (b) of that section requires
pipeline operators to "give particular attention to pipe. . . at pipe supports. . . and in spans over
water" when inspecting for evidence of atmospheric corrosion.
The failure investigation included the collection and review of various records and
information obtained from KMEP. The cause of the failure was localized general external
corrosion and severe pitting at the pipe support, specifically at the site of an 8" long wear pad
tack welded to the pipe in the 6 0'clock position. The remaining wall thickness along the
wear pad was so thin that remaining pipe wall thickness measurements were not made. The
failure resulted in the release of 1, 419 barrels of butane into an HCA.
The March 7, 2006 inspection of the pipeline crossing had been erroneously graded "fair" by
KMEP personnel using KMEP operations and maintenance procedures. In the paragraph
entitled, "Methodology" on page 4 of 5 of Section III of KMEP's Atmospheric Corrosion
Procedures, revised date of 12-21-04, the procedure states that:
"Each defined area should be graded according to the worst atmospheric condition(s) that
exist(s) within a defined area. For example, severe-localized pitting on an isolated section of
piping would be graded as poor atmospheric condition as defined by the grading scales listed
below. While the remainder of the piping may be in good condition, the piping with the
localized pitting serves as the "weakest link" or the point at which MOP could be
compromised if not mitigated by re-coating ".
The March 7, 2006 inspection by the operator graded the complete overhead span crossing the
Des Plaines River as "fair". The section quoted &om KMEP's procedures, above, should
have led to a "poor" grading of the overhead crossing due to the portion of pipe at the pipe
support with localized atmospheric corrosion and severe pitting being the "weakest link".
Pro s Civi Pen t
Under 49 United States Code, g 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$100, 000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of
$1, 000, 000 for any related series of violations. The Compliance Of5cer has reviewed the
circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case and it is his recommendation
that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty as follows:
Item ~PE ALA(
$133, 000



es o seto No 'ce
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. If you believe that any portion of your 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 qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the
redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U. S. C. 552(b). 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 a Final
Order.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2007-5020 and for each
document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Ivan A. Huntoon
Director, Central Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 11990