{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320121003","title":"ROCKIES EXPRESS PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-06-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.225(a), 192.243(a), 192.245(b), 192.303, 192.305, 192.319(a), 192.319(b)(2), 192.461(c), 192.619(a)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320121003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320121003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320121003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320121003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ROCKIES EXPRESS PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.225(a),  192.243(a),  192.245(b),  192.303,  192.305,  192.319(a),  192.319(b)(2),  192.461(c),  192.619(a)(1). The case was opened on 2012-06-15 and is reported as closed as of 2017-06-05. Proposed civil penalty: $347,800. Assessed civil penalty: $312,670. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320121003_Closing Letter_06052017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320121003/320121003_Closing%20Letter_06052017.pdf\n\n320121003_Closing Letter_06052017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320121003/320121003_Closing%20Letter_06052017_text.pdf\n\n320121003_Consent Agreement and Order_11022012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320121003/320121003_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_11022012.pdf\n\n320121003_Consent Agreement and Order_11022012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320121003/320121003_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_11022012_text.pdf\n\n320121003_NOPV PCP PCO_06152012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320121003/320121003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06152012.pdf\n\n320121003_NOPV PCP PCO_06152012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320121003/320121003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06152012_text.pdf\n\n320121003_Consent Agreement and Order_11022012_text.pdf\n\nNOVEMBER 2, 2012\nVIA CERTIFIED MAIL\nMr. M. Dwayne Burton\nVice President, Operations and Engineering\nRockies Express Pipeline, LLC\nKinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.\n500 Dallas Street, Suite 1000\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF Nos. 3-2012-1003; 1004; 1005\nConsent Agreement and Order\nDear Mr. Burton:\nEnclosed is a Consent Agreement and Order that you signed on October 17, 2012 in the above-\nreferenced cases. Your receipt of this Consent Agreement and Order constitutes service of that\ndocument under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nPlease direct any questions on this matter to David Barrett, Director, Central Region, Office of\nPipeline Safety, PHMSA, at (816) 329-3800.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nFor Pipeline Safety\ncc: Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nMr. David Barrett, Director, Central Region, OPS\nMr. Robert E. Hogfoss, Esq., Hunton & Williams LLP\nMs. Catherine Little, Esq., Hunton & Williams LLP\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\n)\n)\nRockies Express Pipeline, LLC, ) CPF Nos. 3-2012-1003;\n) 1004; 1005\nRespondent )\n____________________________________)\nCONSENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER\nFrom July 2007 through November 2009, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of title 49 United States\nCode, conducted on-site inspections of the construction of approximately 1,351 miles of the\nRockies Express pipeline system, a 42-inch diameter natural gas pipeline running from Colorado\nto Ohio (REX Pipeline) constructed in two separate phases designated as the REX West pipeline\nand the REX East pipeline.1 As a result of these inspections, on June 15, 2012, PHMSA issued\nthree Notices of Probable Violation (Notices) to Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC and Kinder\nMorgan Energy Partners, L.P.\nThe first Notice, CPF 3-2012-1003, alleged 13 violations of the federal pipeline safety\nregulations in 49 C.F.R. Part 192 in connection with the construction of the REX West pipeline\nand proposed assessing a total civil penalty of $347,800 for 11 of the alleged violations. The\nNotice also proposed ordering certain measures to correct four of the alleged violations to ensure\nthe possibility of any remaining construction defects is addressed.\nThe second Notice, CPF 3-2012-1004, alleged 14 violations of the federal pipeline safety\nregulations in 49 C.F.R. Part 192 in connection with the construction of the REX East pipeline\nand proposed assessing a total civil penalty of $641,900 for the alleged violations.\nThe third Notice, CPF 3-2012-1005, alleged a violation of a Special Permit Order issued by\nPHMSA on July 5, 2006 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $61,800 for this alleged\nviolation.\n1 The REX West pipeline runs from Weld County, Colorado to Audrain County, Missouri. The REX East pipeline\nruns from Audrain County, Missouri to Monroe County, Ohio.2\n\n\n\nThe alleged violations cited in these Notices involve, inter alia, welding procedures and\npractices; weld inspections, testing and quality control; ditching, padding, lowering-in, and\nbackfilling; coating application and repairs; maximum allowable operating pressure design factor\nin some Class 2 locations; depth of cover in certain areas; and other construction specifications\nand standards.\nOn July 16, 2012, Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC (Respondent) submitted a combined response\nto the Notices providing information concerning the extent to which it had cooperated with\nPHMSA’s investigation and self-identified some of the alleged violations cited in the Notices.\nRespondent also provided information concerning the corrective actions it has taken, reserved its\nright to a hearing, and requested consultations with PHMSA on the disposition of all three\nNotices. Respondent and PHMSA engaged in good faith settlement discussions resulting in this\nConsent Agreement and Order.\nHaving agreed that settlement of this proceeding will avoid further administrative proceedings or\nlitigation and that entry of this Consent Agreement and Order is the most appropriate means of\nresolving the Notices, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 190, without adjudication of any issue of fact or\nlaw, and upon consent and agreement of Respondent and PHMSA (“the Parties”), the following\nis agreed upon and Ordered:\nI. General Provisions\n1. Respondent acknowledges that Respondent and its pipeline system are subject to the\njurisdiction of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq., and the regulations and\nadministrative orders issued thereunder. For purposes of this Consent Agreement and Order,\nRespondent acknowledges that it received proper notice of PHMSA’s action in this proceeding\nand that the Notice states claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60101\net seq. and the regulations and orders issued thereunder.\n2. Respondent, for purposes of this Consent Agreement and Order, does not contest the\nallegations made in the Notices and agrees to abide by the terms of this Consent Agreement and\nOrder. Respondent agrees to pay the civil penalty as set forth in Section VI of this Consent\nAgreement and Order, and agrees to achieve compliance by completing the actions specified in\nSection II (“Work to be Performed”). These actions, including any work plans and schedules,\nshall be automatically incorporated into this Consent Agreement and Order. This Consent\nAgreement and Order does not constitute a finding of violation of any Federal law or regulation\nand may not be used in any civil proceeding of any kind as evidence or proof of any fact, fault or\nliability, or as evidence of the violation of any law, rule, regulation or requirement, except in a\nproceeding to enforce the provisions of this Consent Agreement and Order.\n3. Respondent consents to the issuance of this Consent Agreement and Order, and hereby\nwaives any further procedural requirements with respect to its issuance. Respondent waives all\nrights to contest the Notices, or the validity of this Consent Agreement and Order, including all\nrights to administrative or judicial hearings or appeals.\n3\n\n\n\n4. This Consent Agreement and Order shall apply to and be binding upon PHMSA, and\nupon Respondent, its officers, directors, and employees, and its successors, assigns, or other\nentities or persons otherwise bound by law. Respondent agrees to provide a copy of this Consent\nAgreement and Order, and any incorporated work plans and schedules, to all of Respondent’s\nofficers, employees, and agents whose duties might reasonably include compliance with this\nConsent Agreement and Order.\n5. For all transfers of ownership or operating responsibility of Respondent’s REX pipeline,\nRespondent shall provide a copy of this Consent Agreement and Order to the prospective\ntransferee at least 10 business days prior to such transfer and simultaneously provide written\nnotice of the prospective transfer to the PHMSA Regional Director who issued the Notices.\n6. This Consent Agreement and Order constitutes the final, complete and exclusive\nagreement and understanding between the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in this\nConsent Agreement and Order, and the Parties acknowledge that there are no representations,\nagreements or understandings relating to the settlement other than those expressly contained in\nthis Consent Agreement and Order, except that the terms of this Consent Agreement and Order\nmay be construed by reference to the Notices.\n7. Nothing in this Consent Agreement and Order affects or relieves Respondent of its\nresponsibility to comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49\nU.S.C. § 60101 et seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. Nothing in this\nConsent Agreement and Order alters PHMSA’s right of access, entry, inspection, and\ninformation gathering or PHMSA’s authority to bring enforcement actions against Respondent\npursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, the regulations and orders issued thereunder, or any\nother provision of Federal or State law.\n8. This Consent Agreement and Order does not waive or modify any Federal, State, or local\nlaws or regulations that are applicable to Respondent’s pipeline systems. This Consent\nAgreement and Order is not a permit, or a modification of any permit, under any Federal, State,\nor local laws or regulations. Respondent remains responsible for achieving and maintaining\ncompliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations and permits.\n9. This Consent Agreement and Order does not create rights in, or grant any cause of action\nto, any third party not party to this Agreement. The U.S. Department of Transportation is not\nliable for any injuries or damages to persons or property arising from acts or omissions of\nRespondent or its officers, employees, or agents carrying out the work required by this Consent\nAgreement and Order. Respondent agrees to hold harmless the U.S. Department of\nTransportation, its officers, employees, agents, and representatives from any and all causes of\naction arising from any acts or omissions of Respondent or its contractors in carrying out the\nwork required by this Consent Agreement and Order.\n4\n\n\n\nII. Work to be Performed\n10. Within 45 days of the Effective Date of this Consent Order and Agreement, Respondent\nagrees to submit to the Director, Central Region, PHMSA (Regional Director) a plan and\nschedule for completion of the actions set forth in the Proposed Compliance Order of the CPF 3-\n2012-1003 Notice as follows:\n(a) In regard to Items 3 and 8 of the Notice pertaining to the quality of girth weld radiographs\nand Items 4 and 6 pertaining to girth weld defects, Respondent agrees to submit the\nanalysis for girth weld anomalies in the magnetic flux leakage in-line inspections it has\nrun in accordance with conditions 37 and 38 of the Special Permit Order, to develop and\nimplement a plan to address the potential for remaining girth weld defects resulting from\ninadequate radiography or delayed cracking that was not identified during girth weld\nremediation activities, and to submit these items to the Regional Director.\n(b) Respondent agrees to maintain documentation of the costs associated with fulfilling the\nrequirements of paragraph (a) and to report the costs to the Regional Director in three\ncategories: (1) costs associated with testing, evaluations, studies, and information\nanalysis; (2) costs associated with preparation or revision of plans or procedures; and (3)\ncosts associated with physical changes to pipeline facilities, including repairs,\nreplacements and other modifications.\n11. The Regional Director may grant an extension of time for completion of any of the work\nto be performed hereunder upon a timely written request that demonstrates both good cause for\nan extension and sufficient detail to evaluate Respondent’s good cause request.\nIII. Review and Approval Process\n12. With respect to any submission under Section II of this Consent Agreement and Order\nthat requires the approval of the Regional Director, the Regional Director may: (a) approve, in\nwhole or in part, the submission, (b) approve the submission on specified conditions, (c)\ndisapprove, in whole or in part, the submission, or (d) any combination of the foregoing. In the\nevent of approval, approval in part, or approval upon conditions, Respondent will proceed to take\nall action required by the submission as approved by the Regional Director, subject to\nRespondent’s right to invoke the dispute resolution procedures in this section with respect to any\nconditions identified by the Regional Director. In the event that the Regional Director\ndisapproves all or any portion of the submission, the Director will provide Respondent with a\nwritten notice of the deficiencies. Respondent may seek review by the Associate Administrator\nif Respondent disagrees with Regional Director and the decision by the Associate Administrator\nwill constitute final agency action with respect to the determination made on the submission.\nUnless judicial review is sought by Respondent, upon receipt of the decision, Respondent will\ncorrect all deficiencies within the time specified by the Director and resubmit it for approval.\n5\n\n\n\nIV. Enforcement of Agreement and Order\n13. This Consent Agreement and Order is subject to all enforcement authorities available to\nPHMSA under 49 U.S.C. § 60101 et seq. and 49 C.F.R. Part 190, including administrative civil\npenalties under § 60122 of up to $200,000 per violation for each day the violation continues, if\nPHMSA determines that Respondent is not proceeding in accordance with terms of the Consent\nAgreement and Order, in accordance with determinations made by the Regional Director, or if\nappealed, in accordance with decisions of the Associate Administrator. All work plans and\nassociated schedules set forth or referenced in Section II shall be automatically incorporated into\nthis Consent Agreement and Order and are enforceable in the same manner.\nV. Record Keeping and Information Disclosure\n14. Respondent agrees to maintain records demonstrating compliance with all requirements\nof this Consent Agreement and Order for a period of at least five years following completion of\nall work to be performed. For any reports, plans, or other deliverables required to be submitted\nto PHMSA pursuant to this Consent Agreement and Order, Respondent may assert a claim of\nbusiness confidentiality or other protections applicable to the release of information by PHMSA,\ncovering part or all of the information required to be submitted to PHMSA pursuant to this\nagreement in accordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 7. The claim of confidentiality shall be marked in\nwriting on each page, and shall include a statement specifying the grounds for each claim of\nconfidentiality. PHMSA shall determine release of any information submitted pursuant to this\nConsent Agreement and Order in accordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 7, the Freedom of Information\nAct, 5 U.S.C. § 552, DOT and/or PHMSA policies, and other applicable regulations and\nExecutive Orders.\nVI. Civil Penalties\n15. Respondent agrees to pay $945,900 in civil penalties no later than 10 business days\nfollowing the Effective Date of this Consent Agreement and Order. Federal regulations (49\nC.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\n16. Failure to pay the $945,900 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current\nannual rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23.\nPursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be\ncharged if payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil\npenalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\n6\n\n\n\n17. At the time of payment, Respondent agrees to simultaneously send written notice of the\npayment and a copy of the payment transmittal documentation to:\nDavid Barrett\nDirector, Central Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n901 Locust Street, Suite 462\nKansas City, MO 64106\nRod Dyck\nDirector of Enforcement\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Room E24-302\nWashington, DC 20590\n18. Respondent agrees that the civil penalty payment specified in paragraph 15 will not be\ndeductible by Respondent or any of its affiliates for purposes of Federal taxes.\nVII. Effective Date\n19. The “Effective Date” as used herein is the date on which this Consent Agreement and\nOrder has been signed by both Respondent and PHMSA. Unless specified to the contrary, all\ndeadlines for actions required by this Consent Agreement and Order run from the Effective Date\nof this Consent Agreement and Order.\nVIII. Modification\n20. The terms of this Consent Agreement and Order may be modified by mutual agreement\nof the parties. Such modifications shall be in writing and shall be signed by both parties.\nIX. Termination\n21. This Consent Agreement and Order shall terminate upon payment of the civil penalty and\nthe completion of all terms set forth in Section II (Work to Be Performed) as determined by the\nDirector, Central Region. Respondent may request written confirmation from PHMSA when this\nConsent Agreement and Order is terminated. Nothing in this Consent Agreement and Order\nprevents Respondent from completing any of the obligations earlier than the deadlines provided\nfor herein.\n7\n\n\n\nX. Ratification\n22. The parties undersigned representatives certify that they are fully authorized to enter into\nthe terms and conditions of this Consent Agreement and Order and to execute and legally bind\nsuch party to this document.\n23. The Parties hereby agree to all conditions and terms of this Consent Agreement and\nOrder:\nFor Respondent:\n______________________________________\nMr. M. Dwayne Burton\nVice President, Operations and Engineering\nRockies Express Pipeline, LLC\n______________________________________\nDate\nFor PHMSA:\nRespondent is hereby ordered to comply with the terms of this Consent Agreement and Order,\neffective immediately.\n_______________________________________\nMr. Jeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA\n_______________________________________\nDate\n8\n\n320121003_NOPV PCP PCO_06152012_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nUPS NEXT DAY AIR\nJune 15, 2012\nMr. M. Dwayne Burton\nVice President, Operations and Engineering\nRockies Express Pipeline, LLC\nKinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.\n500 Dallas Street, Suite 1000\nHouston, Texas 77002\nCPF 3-2012-1003\nDear Mr. Burton:\nThe western portion of Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC’s pipeline system (REX West) is a\n713-mile, 42-inch diameter pipeline that transports natural gas from Weld County,\nColorado, to Audrain County, Missouri. In calendar years 2007 and 2008, Kinder\nMorgan Energy Partners, L.P. (KM) built and began its operation. Representatives from\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to\nChapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected the construction and initial operations of\nREX West on numerous occasions from July 2007 through January 2008.\nAs a result of these inspections, it appears that you have committed probable violations\nof the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items\ninspected and the probable violations are:\n1. §192.225 Welding Procedures\n(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder in accordance with\nwelding procedures qualified under section 5 of API 1104 (incorporated by\nreference, see §192.7) or section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel\nCode “ Welding and Brazing Qualifications” (incorporated by reference, see\n1\n\n\n\n§192.7) to produce welds meeting the requirements of this subpart. The\nquality of the test welds used to qualify welding procedures shall be\ndetermined by destructive testing in accordance with the applicable welding\nstandard(s).\nKM did not properly qualify welding procedure RX8-01 to be utilized on REX\nWest. KM provided welding procedure qualification records 754-P, 754-AF,\n754-AL, 754-AR, and 754-AW documenting the testing performed to qualify\nWelding Procedure RX8-01. Test Certificate 754-P indicates one root bend test\nunacceptable; therefore, this procedure failed to pass all of the destructive tests as\nrequired by API 1104. After the non-compliance was observed by PHMSA on\nJuly 16, 2007, KM re-qualified Welding Procedure RX8-01 on July 23, 2007.\n2. §192.225 Welding Procedures\n(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder in accordance with\nwelding procedures qualified under section 5 of API 1104 (incorporated by\nreference, see §192.7) or section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel\nCode “ Welding and Brazing Qualifications” (incorporated by reference, see\n§192.7) to produce welds meeting the requirements of this subpart. The\nquality of the test welds used to qualify welding procedures shall be\ndetermined by destructive testing in accordance with the applicable welding\nstandard(s).\nKM performed welding at certain locations during the construction of REX West\nthat was not in accordance with welding procedures it had qualified under API\n1104. The deficiencies are:\nDate Description\nVarious Certain weld repairs made on Spread 5 were not performed in\naccordance with welding procedures qualified under section 5 of\nAPI 1104. KM utilized an electrode that was not specified in its\nrepair welding procedure. An EWI Microalloying contract\nwelding inspector first identified this problem and informed the\nOak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) inspector who was\nunder contract to provide inspection services to PHMSA on the\nREX West project. The ORNL inspector investigated 102 girth\nwelds that had been made with an electrode not specified in\nKM’s repair welding procedure. The welds were later re-\nrepaired utilizing the correct electrode.\n2\n\n\n\nAugust 7,\n2007\nWhile auditing spread 5, PHMSA personnel observed\nmechanized welders not following a qualified welding procedure\nduring the startup of construction. KM developed welding\nprocedures REX-A-WPS1 and REX-A-WPS3, which specify a\n122 ºF preheat. PHMSA personnel observed workers heating\nthe pipe to around 250 ºF and then letting it cool before welding\ncommenced. The welders then started to weld at preheat values\nbetween 150 ºF and 200 ºF. The workers were not following the\nqualified welding procedure that specified a 122 ºF preheat.\nWelding with this procedure had started earlier that same week.\nAugust\n30, 2007\nPHMSA personnel observed KM welders that were not\nfollowing qualified welding procedure RX8-01A for shielded\nmetal arc welding and flux-cored arc welding on one occasion.\nThe welding procedure specified a gas flow rate of from 35 to 50\ncfh for the gas shielded flux-cored arc welding process.\nPHMSA personnel observed tie-in welders utilizing the gas\nshielded flux-cored arc welding process with the gas flow\nregulators set wide open. KM subsequently investigated this and\nmeasured the gas flow with a turbine meter and it was\ndetermined that a wide-open flow meter delivers approximately\n60 cfh. The welding was not being performed in accordance\nwith the qualified welding procedure.\nOctober\n25, 2007\nWhile auditing Spread 5, PHMSA personnel observed\nmechanized welding on 42” diameter, 0.555” thick Berg pipe in\nwhich welders were not following the welding procedure. The\nqualified welding procedure specified a maximum interpass\ntemperature of 253 ºF. PHMSA observed welding being\nperformed with interpass temperatures of 267 ºF and 270 ºF.\nWhen questioned, the welding inspectors, and welders were\nunaware of the specific requirements of welding procedure\nREX-A-WPS17 that was specifically developed to weld the\nBerg pipe. The welders did not follow the qualified procedure\nfor welding the Berg pipe. Welding with this procedure had\nbeen performed for 3 days prior to PHMSA personnel\nidentifying this issue.\n3. §192.243 Nondestructive testing.\n(a) Nondestructive testing of welds must be performed by any process, other\nthan trepanning, that will clearly indicate defects that may affect the\nintegrity of the weld.\n3\n\n\n\nKM’s process for nondestructive testing of welds did not clearly indicate defects\nthat may have affected the integrity of the welds on REX West. KM utilized\nradiography to examine completed manual girth welds for defects. During the\nconstruction of REX East, radiographic irregularities were identified during a\nreview conducted by ORNL under contract to PHMSA. At PHMSA’s direction,\nKM conducted a review of the REX West radiographs. As a result, it was\ndetermined that 859 of the 7229 radiographs reviewed were not acceptable to\neither API 1104 or KM’s construction standards. These radiographs either had\nnot been properly taken or were improperly interpreted.\nKM then developed a program to further evaluate the deficient radiographs,\nobtain acceptable radiographs as necessary, and then repair or cut out the girth\nwelds that contained defects that had not previously been identified by the\nnondestructive testing and repaired during the initial construction. Based on the\nradiographic review requested by PHMSA, 64 welds containing defects that were\nnot found during the construction phase of REX West required repair after the\npipeline facilities were placed into natural gas service.\n4. §192.245 Repair or removal of defects.\n(b) Each weld that is repaired must have the defect removed down to sound\nwhich would adversely affect the quality of the weld repair. After repair, the\nmetal and the segment to be repaired must be preheated if conditions exist\nsegment of the weld that was repaired must be inspected to ensure its\nacceptability.\nFor certain welds that were repaired, KM did not remove the defect down to\nsound metal as required for those welds that were found to be unacceptable under\n§192.241(c). KM identified many mechanized girth weld defects on the REX\nWest pipeline that were discovered and repaired during construction. Nine of the\nrepaired areas were later found to contain through-wall defects during the\npipeline’s hydrostatic test. These welds had not been properly repaired by\nremoving the defect down to sound metal and preheating as necessary to prevent\ndelayed hydrogen cracking.\nIn response to the defective welds found during hydrotests, KM initiated a repair\nweld re-inspection program that consisted of 260 welds. As a result of the\nadditional re-inspection program KM, discovered another 7 welds that had\nalready been placed into service that contained unacceptable defects. These welds\nwere not removed or repaired by removing the defect down to sound metal, but\nwere covered with a pressure containing welded sleeve. KM also failed to ensure\nthat each repair weld on REX West was properly inspected to ensure its\nacceptability since these girth welds that contained unacceptable defects were not\nremoved or repaired during the pipeline’s construction.\n4\n\n\n\n5. §192.303 Compliance with specifications or standards.\nEach transmission line or main must be constructed in accordance with\ncomprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with\nthis part.\nKM did not construct REX West in accordance with written specifications in\ncertain locations.\nKM procedure C1080 Item 2.3 specifies:\nContractor shall be responsible for application of coating according to the\nManufacturer's specifications and requirements of the Company\nRepresentative.\nKM did not apply coating to certain girth welds within the temperature range\nspecified by the manufacturer. KM utilized 3M 6233 fusion bonded epoxy for\ncoating girth welds on the pipeline. 3M specifies an application temperature of\n425 ºF to 488 ºF. PHMSA personnel observed workers on 5 occasions through\nSpreads 1, 6, and 7 not heating the pipe to a level within the proper temperature\nrange required by the manufacturer’s specifications. The observations of\ninadequate application temperatures were made on August 10, 2007, and August\n21, 2007, on Spread 1; October 16, 2007, on Spread 6; and August 14, 2007, and\nNovember 28, 2007, on Spread 7.\nKM procedure C1080 Item 7.9 specifies:\nTo repair pinholes in epoxy coatings, the original coated surface shall be\nthoroughly cleaned and lightly abraded with sandpaper (approximate\narea 0.5-inch radius around pinhole). All dust shall be removed before\napplying a patch stick. The cleaned pipe surface shall be heated until the\npatch stick begins to melt when rubbed over the heated area. Material\nshall be applied to obtain a minimum thickness of 15 mils over the entire\nabraded area.\nKM procedure C1080 Item 7.10 specifies:\nHolidays larger than 0.5 square-inch shall not be repaired using patch\nsticks. Contractor shall use coatings specified for large area repairs and\napply coating in conformance with Manufacturer’s recommendations.\nWorkers failed to follow KM procedures limiting holiday repairs using patch\nsticks to holidays smaller than 0.5 square-inches. PHMSA personnel observed\nworkers repairing holidays larger than 0.5 square-inches with patch sticks on 3\n5\n\n\n\noccasions. These observations were made on August 8, 2007, on Spread 4; and\non September 19, 2007, and February 12, 2008, on Spread 6.\n6. §192.305 Inspection: General.\nEach transmission line or main must be inspected to ensure that it is\nconstructed in accordance with this part.\nKM did not adequately inspect the welding on its REX West transmission line at\ncertain locations to ensure it was constructed in accordance with Part 192. KM\ncontracted with Gulf Interstate to supply a Senior Welding Inspector and\ndedicated welding inspectors on each of the construction spreads. Nevertheless,\nas set forth in Item 2 above, PHMSA identified 3 instances of welding that had\nnot been performed in accordance with a qualified welding procedure. In each of\nthese cases, welding had already been performed when PHMSA personnel\nobserved that the qualified procedures were not being followed. If KM’s\ninspectors had adequately inspected the welding processes, the workers’ failure\nto follow the qualified procedure would have been identified and corrected. The\nwelding inspectors did not inspect the construction activity in a manner that\nensured the transmission line was constructed in accordance with applicable\nrequirements and Part 192.\n7. §192.305 Inspection: General.\nEach transmission line or main must be inspected to ensure that it is\nconstructed in accordance with this part.\nKM did not adequately inspect the coating of its transmission line at certain\nlocations to ensure it was constructed in accordance with this part. KM hired a\ndedicated pipe coating inspector on each of the construction spreads. As set forth\nin Items 5, 11, and 12, KM did not apply or repair coating at certain locations as\nrequired. Had KM adequately inspected the coating work, the workers’ failure to\nfollow the procedure for pipe coating would have been identified and corrected.\nIn many cases, coating work had already been performed and the problems had to\nbe discovered by PHMSA after the fact. The coating inspectors did not inspect\nthe coating work in a manner that ensured the transmission line was constructed\nin accordance with applicable requirements and Part 192.\n8. §192.305 Inspection: General.\nEach transmission line or main must be inspected to ensure that it is\nconstructed in accordance with this part.\nKM did not adequately inspect the nondestructive testing of its transmission line\nto ensure it was constructed in accordance with this part. As set forth in Item 3\nabove, KM failed to adequately inspect the radiographic practices and film\n6\n\n\n\ninterpretation utilized during the construction of the Steele City, Meeker,\nJulesburg, Cheyenne, Turney, Wamsutter, Bertrand, Big Hole, Arlington,\nArlington expansion, Echo Springs Meter, Echo Springs Lateral, Echo Springs\nCompressor, Echo Springs Field, Lost Creek Meter, KMIGT Meter, and NGPL\nMeter sections of REX West. If KM had adequately inspected the nondestructive\ntesting of the girth welds during construction, the defective girth welds would\nhave been identified by the inspector. KM did not inspect the construction in a\nmanner that ensured the transmission line was constructed in accordance with\napplicable requirements and Part 192.\n9. §192.319 Installation of pipe in a ditch\n(a) When installed in a ditch, each transmission line that is to be operated at\na pressure producing a hoop stress of 20 percent or more of SMYS must be\ninstalled so that the pipe fits the ditch so as to minimize stresses and protect\nthe pipe coating from damage.\nKM failed to install pipe within a ditch to minimize the stresses on the pipe by\nensuring it fit properly within the ditch. During the week of November 26, 2007,\nPHMSA personnel observed workers on Spread 7 preparing to lower a continuous\nsection of welded pipe into the ditch that was approximately 1-3/4 miles long.\nThe maximum distance between open ends was greater than 5,000 feet, which is\ncontrary to KM’s written construction procedures for minimizing stresses that\nrequires that “open ends shall be a maximum distance of 5,000 feet apart (or less\nwhen required by terrain or land use).” When questioned, the Chief Inspector\nacknowledged that line sections were lowered in as welded and no additional cuts\nwere made or other action taken to minimize stresses during installation into the\nditch.\n10. §192.319 Installation of pipe in a ditch\n(b) When a ditch for a transmission line or main is backfilled, it must be\nbackfilled in a manner that:\n(2) Prevents damage to the pipe and pipe coating from equipment or from\nthe backfill material.\nKM failed to prevent damage to the pipe and pipe coating from the trench and\nbackfill material at various locations on REX West.\nPHMSA personnel received reports that indicated that sections of Spread 5 pipe\nhad been backfilled with rocks that damaged the pipe coating (and potentially the\npipe). In addition, the contractor did not install rock shield around the pipe or use\nrock shakers (devices to separate rock from the backfill material) as required to\nprevent damage from rocks. KM excavated the completed pipeline at about 100\nlocations to remediate indications from in-line inspection (ILI) tools and Direct\nCurrent Voltage Gradient (DCVG) surveys performed after the pipeline had been\n7\n\n\n\nplaced into service. These excavations were witnessed by PHMSA personnel and\nKM contract inspectors. At approximately 19 of the locations dents, rocks in the\nbackfill, and/or pipeline in contact with solid rock were identified.\nFour of the excavations also showed evidence that the pipeline was backfilled\nbefore the wet two-part epoxy that had been applied to the girth welds had\ncompletely cured, causing the coating to be a mixture of dirt and epoxy.\n11. §192.461 External corrosion control: Protective coating.\n(c) Each external protective coating must be inspected just prior to lowering\nthe pipe into the ditch and backfilling, and any damage detrimental to\neffective corrosion control must be repaired.\nKM did not inspect each protective coating just prior to lowering the pipe into the\nditch during portions of the REX West construction. PHMSA personnel observed\nworkers on Spread 3 and 5 that were not removing building insulation from the\npipe. The workmen were manipulating the electronic holiday detector’s spring to\njump over the attached insulation. The building insulation was used to pad the\npipe from the skids. Certain areas of the coating could not be visually or\nelectronically inspected because the building insulation had not been removed.\nKM procedure C1080 Item 7.3 also specifies that buried coated facilities shall\npass both a visual and electrical holiday detector test as the pipe is lowered into\nthe ditch.\n12. §192.461 External corrosion control: Protective coating.\n(c) Each external protective coating must be inspected just prior to lowering\nthe pipe into the ditch and backfilling, and any damage detrimental to\neffective corrosion control must be repaired.\nKM did not repair damaged coating detrimental to effective corrosion control at\ncertain locations during the REX West construction. During the week of August\n27, 2007, PHMSA personnel observed workmen on Spread 3 that were not\nrepairing visible coating damage that had occurred as a result of the welding\nbands utilized. Spread 3 utilized RMS Welding Systems’ bands that were found to\ncause visible damage to the thin film epoxy coating on the pipe. Coating defects\ncaused by band damage were found adjacent to 2 girth welds that had been\nlowered-in the ditch and 10 other girth welds that had been through the pre-\njeeping process. Given the nature of the coating damage, these areas were not\nidentified by the electrical holiday detectors so the workers were not repairing\nthem, even though the coating damage was clearly visible.\n13. §192.619 Maximum allowable operating pressure - Steel or plastic pipelines\n8\n\n\n\n(a) No person may operate a segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a pressure\nthat exceeds a maximum allowable operating pressure determined under\nparagraph (c) or (d) of this section, or the lowest of the following:\n(1) The design pressure of the weakest element in the segment,\ndetermined in accordance with subparts C and D of this part.\n§192.111 Design factor for steel pipe.\n(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section,\nthe design factor to be used in the design formula in §192.105 is determined in\naccordance with the following table\nClass location Design factor (F)\n1 0.72\n2 0.60\nKM established the maximum allowable operating pressure of REX West at\nvarious locations at a pressure that exceeded the design pressure of the pipe and\nplaced the pipeline into service on or about April 28, 2008. KM used a Class 1\ndesign factor to establish the maximum allowable operating pressure of 1480 psig\nin 4 pipeline segments totaling about 3500 feet of pipe that were actually located\nin Class 2 areas. Most of the pipe was installed near the town of Renick, Missouri\nin the summer of 2008. KM did not use the proper Class 2 design factor of 0.60,\nwhich would establish the maximum allowable operating pressure at 1110 psig,\nrather than the 1480 psig.\nThe maximum allowable operating pressure of the pipe was calculated using a\nClass 1 design factor of 0.8 (PHMSA Grant of Waiver to §192.111 - Docket No.\nPHMSA-2006-23998). The Waiver PHMSA granted to Rockies Express\nauthorizes the use of a design factor of 0.8 only in Class 1 areas, not in Class 2\nareas. KM subsequently took the pipeline out of service and replaced the pipe\nusing Class 2 design factors on or about September 3, 2008.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of\n$1,000,000 for any relat","truncated":true,"body_characters":44229}