# KPC PIPELINE, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 320111014
- **title:** KPC PIPELINE, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2011-08-23
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.465(d), 192.476(c), 192.479(a), 192.481(a), 192.605(c)(4).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320111014.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320111014.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320111014
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320111014
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving KPC PIPELINE, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.465(d),  192.476(c),  192.479(a),  192.481(a),  192.605(c)(4). The case was opened on 2011-08-23 and is reported as closed as of 2016-05-30. Proposed civil penalty: $65,000. Assessed civil penalty: $65,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

320111014_Closure Letter_05302016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320111014/320111014_Closure%20Letter_05302016.pdf

320111014_Closure Letter_05302016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320111014/320111014_Closure%20Letter_05302016_text.pdf

320111014_Decision on Petitions for Reconsideration_12052013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320111014/320111014_Decision%20on%20Petitions%20for%20Reconsideration_12052013.pdf

320111014_Decision on Petitions for Reconsideration_12052013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320111014/320111014_Decision%20on%20Petitions%20for%20Reconsideration_12052013_text.pdf

320111014_Final Order_06102013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320111014/320111014_Final%20Order_06102013.pdf

320111014_Final Order_06102013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320111014/320111014_Final%20Order_06102013_text.pdf

320111014_NOPV PCP PCO_08232011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320111014/320111014_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08232011.pdf

320111014_NOPV PCP PCO_08232011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320111014/320111014_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08232011_text.pdf

320111014_Operator Response and Request Time Extension_10112011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320111014/320111014_Operator%20Response%20and%20Request%20Time%20Extension_10112011.pdf

320111014_Operator Response to Notice_12012011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320111014/320111014_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_12012011.pdf

320111014_Petition for  Reconsideration_06282013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320111014/320111014_Petition%20for%20%20Reconsideration_06282013.pdf

320111014_Petition for Reconsideration_07032013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320111014/320111014_Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_07032013.pdf

320111014_Final Order_06102013_text.pdf

JUNE 10, 2013
Mr. Terry W. Carter, CEO
PostRock Energy Corporation
210 Park Ave #2750
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102
Mr. Gary Navarro, President
MV Purchasing, LLC
8301 East 21st Street, Suite 370
Wichita, Kansas 67206
Re: CPF No. 3-2011-1014
Gentlemen:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a civil penalty of $65,000 against PostRock Energy Corporation, and specifies
actions that need to be taken by MV Purchasing, LLC, the new owner of PostRock’s facilities, to
comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms
of the compliance order 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, Central Region Director, OPS
Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
PostRock Energy Corporation, ) CPF No. 3-2011-1014
f/d/b/a PostRock KPC Pipeline, LLC, )
)
Respondent, )
)
and )
)
MV Purchasing, LLC. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On October 18-22, 25-28, and November 2-5, 2010, 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 PostRock KPC Pipeline, LLC, a subsidiary of PostRock Energy Corporation
(PostRock or Respondent), in Olathe, Kansas. As of the date of the OPS inspection, PostRock
operated a 1,120-mile interstate pipeline transporting natural gas from northern Oklahoma and
western Kansas to Wichita and Kansas City. In late 2012, the pipeline was sold and is now
operated by MV Purchasing, LLC, a privately owned energy logistics company offering various
energy services to oil and gas producers and petroleum refiners throughout the United States.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated August 23, 2011, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order
(Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that PostRock had committed various
violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192, assessing a civil penalty of $65,000, and ordering Respondent
to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning item required no further
action, but warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face possible enforcement
action.
PostRock responded to the Notice by letter dated December 1, 2011 (Response). Respondent did
1 MV Purchasing, LLC, by letter dated November 12, 2010, informed PHMSA that it had purchased PostRock in
October 2012. See http://www.pstr.com/ and http://www.mvpurchasing.com/news//view/4 (last accessed May 16,
2013).



2
not contest the allegations of violation but provided an explanation of its actions and requested
that the proposed civil penalty be reduced and the proposed compliance order be modified.
Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, PostRock did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated
49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d), which states:
§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.
(a) Each pipeline that is under cathodic protection must be tested at
least once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months,
to determine whether the cathodic protection meets the requirements of §
192.463…
(d) Each operator shall take prompt remedial action to correct any
deficiencies indicated by the monitoring.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d) by failing to take prompt
remedial action to correct deficiencies indicated by annual corrosion control monitoring.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that during its inspection, PHMSA discovered that between
calendar years 2006 and 2010 there were 12 test station locations on PostRock’s 8-inch P-80
pipeline that were either damaged or exhibited cathodic protection readings not meeting the
minimum voltage criteria found in Appendix D to Part 192. Section 192.463 requires that each
cathodic protection system required by this subpart must provide a level of cathodic protection
that complies with one or more of the applicable criteria contained in Appendix D. The Notice
alleged that the deficiencies remained uncorrected on one or more subsequent annual
inspections.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation but noted that seven of the 12 deficiencies
occurred prior to PostRock’s acquisition of line P-80 in 2007 and that its corrosion monitoring
work was actually performed by another operator having two other pipelines in the same right-
of-way. PostRock, however, has a responsibility to correct external corrosion deficiencies if
such problems are indicated at any time during its ownership and operation of the pipeline, and
that it bears such a responsibility regardless of what company or contractor is actually
performing the work on behalf of PostRock. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the
evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d) by failing to take prompt
remedial action to correct deficiencies indicated by annual corrosion control monitoring.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a), which states:



3
§ 192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.
(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline
that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion,
as follows:
If the pipeline is located: Then the frequency of
inspection is:
Onshore
At least once every 3 calendar
years, but with intervals not
exceeding 39 months. . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a) by failing to perform
atmospheric corrosion inspections for onshore pipelines exposed to the atmosphere, within the
39-month maximum interval. Specifically, the Notice alleged that PostRock did not perform
atmospheric corrosion inspections on 82 valves and 66 pipe spans exposed to the atmosphere
within the 39-month maximum interval.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a) by failing to perform
atmospheric corrosion inspections for onshore pipelines exposed to the atmosphere within the
39-month maximum interval.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a), which states:
§ 192.479 Atmospheric corrosion control: General.
(a) Each operator must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of
pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under
paragraph (c) of this section.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a) by failing to clean and coat
each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere, except as otherwise
provided under paragraph (c) of § 192.479. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent did
not coat exposed pipe at four creek crossings (MP 179 on the P-40 pipeline, MP 190 on the P-30
pipeline, MP 319 on the P-50 pipeline, and MP 104 on the P-20 pipeline) with a suitable material
to prevent atmospheric corrosion.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a) by failing to clean and
coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere, except as otherwise
provided under paragraph (c) of § 192.479.



4
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, which states, in
relevant part:
§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and
emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each
pipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and
maintenance activities and for emergency response. For transmission lines,
the manual must also include procedures for handling abnormal
operations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at
intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.
This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system
commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations
where operations and maintenance activities are conducted. . .
(c) Abnormal operation. For transmission lines, the manual required
by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following
to provide safety when operating design limits have been exceeded: . . .
(4) Periodically reviewing the response of operator personnel to
determine the effectiveness of the procedures controlling abnormal
operation and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(c)(4) by failing to prepare and
follow a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and
for emergency response. Specifically, it alleged that PostRock failed to prepare and follow
written procedures for periodically reviewing the response of its personnel to determine the
effectiveness of its procedures for abnormal operations and taking corrective action where
deficiencies were found. Specifically, the Notice alleged that PostRock had instances of
unintended activations of emergency compressor shutdowns that PostRock did not regard as
abnormal operations as long as the pipeline did not exceed the maximum allowable operating
pressure (MAOP).
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(c)(4) by failing to prepare
and follow a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities
and for emergency response.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under
49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,



5
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s
ability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing
business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without
any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.
The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $65,000 for the violations cited above.
Respondent requested that the proposed penalties for Items 1 and 3 be reduced because all or a
portion of the alleged violations occurred prior to its ownership of the P-80 pipeline and because
the corrosion monitoring work had been performed by an operator other than PostRock.
However, as discussed above, such circumstances do not negate an operator’s responsibility to
comply with the pipeline safety regulations at all times it actually owns or operates a pipeline or
to ensure that all work performed by contractors is done properly and in a timely manner. For
these reasons, I see no basis to reduce either penalty.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $28,900 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d), for failing to take prompt remedial action to correct deficiencies
indicated by annual corrosion control monitoring. Respondent did not contest the allegation but
requested a penalty reduction. Section 192.465 is intended to minimize the risk of external
corrosion that can cause failures and injuries to people and the environment, by requiring
operators to take prompt and effective action to address integrity threats. Accordingly, having
reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, as discussed above, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $28,900 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d).
Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $22,700 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a), for failing to perform, within the 39-month maximum interval,
atmospheric corrosion inspections on each pipeline exposed to the atmosphere. Respondent did
not contest the allegation but requested a penalty reduction. Operators are required to inspect
their pipelines for atmospheric corrosion to prevent pipe failures that could cause injury to
people, property, or the environment. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered
the assessment criteria, as discussed above, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $22,700 for
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a).
Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $13,400 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a), for failing to clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is
exposed to the atmosphere, unless excepted under paragraph (c) of § 192.479. Respondent did
not contest the allegation. Proper cleaning and coating of each pipeline is vital to preventing and
controlling corrosion and ensuring safe operation of the pipeline. Accordingly, having reviewed
the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $13,400
for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a).
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $65,000.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations



6
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The
Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.
Failure to pay the $65,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate
in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 3, 4, and 5 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.465, 192.481, 192.479, and 192.605, respectively. Under
49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or
operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established
under chapter 601. The Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following
corrective actions:
1. Item 1 – The Proposed Compliance Order required that PostRock identify and
repair all broken test stations, and remediate known deficiencies in cathodic
protection voltage criteria found through its annual corrosion control monitoring
program. PostRock provided evidence that it had identified and repaired all
broken test stations and remediated all known deficiencies.
2. Item 4 – A portion of the Proposed Compliance Order required that Respondent
assess the integrity of the pipe at the four locations outlined in Item 4, make
necessary repairs, clean and coat the pipe at each location, and furnish PHMSA
with a report on the completed actions. PostRock provided evidence that it had
assessed the integrity of the four locations cited in Notice and made the necessary
repairs.
3. Item 5 – The Proposed Compliance Order required that Respondent establish and
maintain a specific record or log, in accordance with its operating procedures to
document abnormal operations. PostRock provided evidence that it had
established and maintained such a log. This addresses a portion of the proposed
compliance terms for Item 5 of the Notice.
Accordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to Item 1 and portions of
Items 4 and 5 of the Notice. Therefore, the compliance terms proposed for these Items are not
included in this Order.



7
As for the remaining compliance terms, MV Purchasing, LLC, is expected to take the following
actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations.
Upon the request of Respondent and pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and
49 C.F.R. § 190.217: PHMSA requests MV Purchasing, LLC, to take the following actions:
1. With respect to the violations of §§ 192.481(a) and 192.479(a) (Items 3 and 4),
MV Purchasing, LLC, must establish a plan to identify, inspect, and perform
necessary repairs to all creek crossings, spans, and pipe exposed by soil erosion,
according to a prioritized schedule. The operator must furnish a copy of the plan to
the Director for review and must complete all such work by January 31, 2014.
2. With respect to the violation of § 192.605(c)(4) (Item 5), MV Purchasing, LLC,
must:
i. Make modifications to its Operations and Maintenance procedures so that
it is clear that exceeding “operating design limits” applies to all applicable
system design parameters, including unintended emergency shutdowns
and any other mechanical or electrical parameters associated with
§ 192.605(c)(1)(i) through (v). The procedures must make clear that
exceeding MAOP is not the sole criteria for determining when abnormal
operations have occurred.
ii. Identify five types of abnormal operations specific to its compressor
stations and conduct training and testing for all operations personnel and
submit copies of the related records to the Director.
iii. Upon the issuance of this Final Order and continuing until the case is
closed, MY Purchasing, LLC, must provide semi-annual reports to the
Director, describing any significant abnormal operations that have
occurred and how they have been resolved.
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.
WARNING ITEM
With respect to Item 2, the Notice alleged a probable violation of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 but did not
propose a civil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be
warning item. The warning was for:
49 C.F.R. § 192.476(c) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to evaluate the
impact of change on internal corrosion risk to its pipeline upon the proposed
reconfiguration of its P-100, P-110, P-30 and P-40 lines.



8
If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, MV Purchasing, LLC, may
be subject to future enforcement action.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of
this Final Order. 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. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of
any civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all
other 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

320111014_Closure Letter_05302016_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
May 30, 2016
Mr. Lee Bullock
President
KPC Pipeline, LLC
19970 West 161st Street
Olathe, Kansas 66062
Re: CPF 3-2011-1014
Dear Mr. Bullock:
On June 10, 2013, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to KPC Pipeline, LLC, formerly PostRock Energy Corporation, a Final Order in the
above-referenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment.
Based on our review of the documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the
civil penalty, 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,
Allan C. Beshore
Director, Central Region, OPS
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: Mr. Terry W. Carter
Mr. Gary Navarro

320111014_NOPV PCP PCO_08232011_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
August 23, 2011
Mr. Tom Saunders
PostRock (KPC) Pipeline, LLC
9520 North May Avenue
Suite 300
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73120
Dear Mr. Saunders: CPF 3-2011-1014
On October 18-22, 25-28, and November 2-5, 2010, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49
United States Code inspected your records and facilities in Olathe, Kansas.
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. §192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.
(d) Each operator shall take prompt remedial action to correct any
deficiencies indicated by the monitoring.
PostRock did not take prompt remedial action to correct deficiencies indicated by
annual corrosion control monitoring. PHMSA discovered during the records
review that between the 2006 and 2010 calendar years there were 12 test station
locations on PostRock’s 8-inch P-80 pipeline that were either damaged or exhibited
cathodic protection readings that did not meet minimum voltage criteria found in
Appendix B to Part 192. These deficiencies remained uncorrected on one or more
subsequent annual inspections as shown by the table below.



Milepost Deficiency Subsequent annual
inspections remaining
uncorrected
105 38+52 low cathodic potentials 2 years (2009-2010)
130 01+45 low cathodic potentials 1 year (2009)
140 10+23 low cathodic potentials 3 years (2008-2010)
141 15+82 low cathodic potentials 3 years (2008-2010)
255 18+25 broken test station 4 years (2007-2010)
291 06+28 broken test station 1 year (2006)
296 40+88 low cathodic potentials 1 year (2006)
297 23+80 broken test station 1 year (2006)
299 20+95 low cathodic potentials 1 year (2007)
301 15+27 broken test station 1 year (2006)
302 45+34 broken test station 1 year (2006)
354 37+15 broken test station 1 year (2007)
2. §192.476 Internal corrosion control: Design and construction of transmission
line.
(c) Change to existing transmission line. When an operator changes the
configuration of a transmission line, the operator must evaluate the impact of
the change on internal corrosion risk to the downstream portion of an existing
onshore transmission line and provide for removal of liquids and monitoring
of internal corrosion as appropriate.
PostRock did not perform an evaluation of the impact of reconfiguring its P-100,
P-110, P-30, and P-40 pipelines prior to placing the pipelines into service for
bidirectional flow. PHMSA discovered during the records inspection that
PostRock had reconfigured the pipelines for reverse flow in September, 2010;
however, no evaluation had been initiated. Subsequent to the inspection, PostRock
agreed to perform additional internal corrosion monitoring.
3. §192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.
(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is
exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:
If the pipeline is located: Then the frequency of inspection is:
Onshore…………………. At least once every 3 calendar years, but
with intervals not exceeding 39 months
Offshore…………………. At least once each calendar year, but with
intervals not exceeding 15 months
2



Between the 2006 and 2010 calendar years (CY) PostRock did not perform
atmospheric corrosion inspections on 148 pipe locations exposed to the atmosphere
within the 39 month maximum interval. PHMSA found during the records
inspection that many atmospheric corrosion reports were missing. Subsequent to
PHMSA’s inspection, PostRock provided an itemized log of completed
atmospheric corrosion inspections. The log showed that 82 valves and 66 pipe
spans had not been inspected within the 3 CY frequency. Many inspections
exceeded the 39 month maximum interval by 1 or more full years because they had
last been inspected in CY 2002, 2003, or 2004.
4. §192.479 Atmospheric corrosion control; General.
(a) Each operator must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline
that is exposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this
section.
PostRock did not clean and coat four locations where its pipelines were exposed to
the atmosphere at creek crossings. PostRock did not perform tests or investigations
to demonstrate that the atmospheric corrosion would not affect the safe operation of
the pipeline per the exception in §192.479(c). During the field verification the
exposed pipe at four creek crossings were observed by PHMSA to be in a condition
that was not coated with a suitable material to prevent atmospheric corrosion. The
following locations were observed to have exhibited atmospheric corrosion: MP
179 on the P-40 pipeline, MP 190 on the P-30 pipeline, MP 319 on the P-50
pipeline, and MP 104 on the P-20 pipeline.
5. §192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a
manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance
activities and for emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual
must also include procedures for handling abnormal operations.
(c) Abnormal operation. For transmission lines, the manual required by
paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to
provide safety when operating design limits have been exceeded:
(4) Periodically reviewing the response of operator personnel to
determine the effectiveness of the procedures controlling abnormal
operation and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found.
3



PostRock did not conduct reviews of its abnormal operations. PostRock personnel
informed PHMSA during the records review that they did not have abnormal operations
records or reviews because they never exceeded the pipeline “design limits.
” However,
during the field inspection, PHMSA discovered recorded instances of unintended
activations of safety devices, such as emergency compressor shut downs (ESD’s). ESD’s
are abnormal operations; however, PostRock personnel did not regard the ESD’s and other
safety device actuations as abnormal operations as long as the pipeline did not exceed
maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP). Exceeding “operating design limits”
does not exclusively mean exceeding MAOP/design pressure of pipe or pipeline system
components. Operating design limits include all control parameters, procedures, or
settings relevant to §192.605(c)(1).
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 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 Officer has reviewed the
circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violations
and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $65,000 as
follows:
Item number PENALTY
1 $28,900
3 $22,700
4 $13,400
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to item numbers 1, 3, 4 and 5 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance
Order to PostRock (KPC) Pipeline, LLC. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order,
which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.
Warning Items
With respect to item number 2 we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting
documents involved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement
action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct
this item. Be advised that failure to do so may result in PostRock being subject to
additional enforcement action.
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
4



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 3-2011-1014 and for each
document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
David Barrett
Director, Central Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
5



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to PostRock KPC Pipeline, LLC a Compliance
Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of
PostRock KPC Pipeline, LLC with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to deficiencies in
corrosion control monitoring on its P-80 pipeline, PostRock must identify
and repair all broken test stations, and remediate known deficiencies in
cathodic protection voltage criteria found through the annual corrosion
control monitoring program.
A plan to accomplish this Item shall be furnished to PHMSA within 30 days
of issuance of the Final Order for approval by the Director, Central Region.
PostRock must complete necessary repairs as delineated in the approved
plan within 90 days of the director’s approval.
2. In regard to Item Numbers 3 and 4 of the Notice pertaining to the
deficiencies in atmospheric corrosion monitoring and control, PostRock
must accomplish the following within 30 days of issuance of the Final
Order:
i. Assess the integrity of the pipe at the four locations outlined in Item
4 of the Notice, make necessary repairs, clean and coat the pipe at
each location, and furnish to PHMSA a report of the completed
actions.
ii. Establish a plan to identify, inspect, and perform necessary repairs
to all creek crossings, spans, and pipe exposed by soil erosion
according to a 12-month prioritized schedule and furnish to the
Director, Central Region a copy of the plan for review.
3. In regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to PostRock’s failure to
review its abnormal operations, within 90 days of the issuance of the Final
Order PostRock must:
6



i. Make modifications to its Operations and Maintenance procedures
so that it is clear that exceeding “operating design limits” applies to
all applicable system design parameters, including unintended
ESD’s and any other mechanical or electrical parameters associated
with §192.605(c)(1)(i) through (v). The procedures must make it
clear that exceeding MAOP is not the sole criteria for determining
when abnormal operations have occurred. Establish and maintain a
specific record or log, in association with operating procedures, in
order to document abnormal operations. Identify abnormal
operations (based on the modified procedures) that have occurred
within the 36 months prior to the issuance of the Final Order, and
incorporate the related records into the log required by ii above.
ii. Perform a review of the personnel responses to the abnormal
operations identified in the log required by ii and iii above in order
to determine the effectiveness of procedures, and supply to the
Director, Central Region the results of the review. The results shall
include a plan to take necessary corrective actions based on the
findings of the review.
iii. Hold training meetings as necessary so that the changes to abnormal
operations procedures and documentation required by this Item are
well understood by all applicable personnel, and submit a roster of
all personnel who received the training to the Director, Central
Region.
4. It is requested (not mandated) that PostRock maintain documentation of the
safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order
and submit the total to David Barrett, Director, Central Region, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs
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.
7

320111014_Decision on Petitions for Reconsideration_12052013_text.pdf

DECEMBER 5, 2013
Mr. Terry W. Carter, CEO
PostRock Energy Corporation
210 Park Ave #2750
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102
Mr. Gary Navarro, President
MV Purchasing, LLC
8301 East 21st Street, Suite 370
Wichita, Kansas 67206
Re: CPF No. 3-2011-1014
Gentlemen:
Enclosed please find the Decision on Petitions for Reconsideration issued in the above-
referenced case. It grants the Petition for Reconsideration, in part, to the extent that PostRock
Energy Corporation requests to be removed as a party to this proceeding is granted. Further, the
joint petition filed by MV Purchasing and KPC Pipeline, LLC is granted, in part, and denied in
part. MV Purchasing’s petition for dismissal from the proceeding is granted. However, the
request for a reduction of the civil penalties is denied. The Decision upholds the findings of
violation and the civil penalty set forth in the Final Order. Service of the Decision 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: Ms. Linda Daugherty, Central Region Director, OPS
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
PostRock KPC Pipeline, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2011-1014
now known as KPC Pipeline, LLC , )
)
Respondent. )
___________________________________ )
DECISION ON PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
On June 10, 2013, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), issued a
Final Order in this proceeding, finding that PostRock Energy Corporation (PostRock Energy)
committed various violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations in 49 C.F.R. Part 192. The Final
Order assessed a civil penalty of $65,000 and specified actions that needed to be taken by MV
Purchasing, LLC (MV Purchasing), the current owner of the pipeline system, to comply with the
Pipeline Safety 
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 49904