# ROCKIES EXPRESS PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

320121003_Closing Letter_06052017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320121003/320121003_Closing%20Letter_06052017.pdf

320121003_Closing Letter_06052017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320121003/320121003_Closing%20Letter_06052017_text.pdf

320121003_Consent Agreement and Order_11022012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320121003/320121003_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_11022012.pdf

320121003_Consent Agreement and Order_11022012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320121003/320121003_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_11022012_text.pdf

320121003_NOPV PCP PCO_06152012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320121003/320121003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06152012.pdf

320121003_NOPV PCP PCO_06152012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320121003/320121003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06152012_text.pdf

320121003_Consent Agreement and Order_11022012_text.pdf

NOVEMBER 2, 2012
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. M. Dwayne Burton
Vice President, Operations and Engineering
Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.
500 Dallas Street, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF Nos. 3-2012-1003; 1004; 1005
Consent Agreement and Order
Dear Mr. Burton:
Enclosed is a Consent Agreement and Order that you signed on October 17, 2012 in the above-
referenced cases. Your receipt of this Consent Agreement and Order constitutes service of that
document under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Please direct any questions on this matter to David Barrett, Director, Central Region, Office of
Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, at (816) 329-3800.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Wiese
Associate Administrator
For Pipeline Safety
cc: Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS
Mr. David Barrett, Director, Central Region, OPS
Mr. Robert E. Hogfoss, Esq., Hunton & Williams LLP
Ms. Catherine Little, Esq., Hunton & Williams LLP



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, DC 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
)
)
Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC, ) CPF Nos. 3-2012-1003;
) 1004; 1005
Respondent )
____________________________________)
CONSENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER
From July 2007 through November 2009, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of title 49 United States
Code, conducted on-site inspections of the construction of approximately 1,351 miles of the
Rockies Express pipeline system, a 42-inch diameter natural gas pipeline running from Colorado
to Ohio (REX Pipeline) constructed in two separate phases designated as the REX West pipeline
and the REX East pipeline.1 As a result of these inspections, on June 15, 2012, PHMSA issued
three Notices of Probable Violation (Notices) to Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC and Kinder
Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.
The first Notice, CPF 3-2012-1003, alleged 13 violations of the federal pipeline safety
regulations in 49 C.F.R. Part 192 in connection with the construction of the REX West pipeline
and proposed assessing a total civil penalty of $347,800 for 11 of the alleged violations. The
Notice also proposed ordering certain measures to correct four of the alleged violations to ensure
the possibility of any remaining construction defects is addressed.
The second Notice, CPF 3-2012-1004, alleged 14 violations of the federal pipeline safety
regulations in 49 C.F.R. Part 192 in connection with the construction of the REX East pipeline
and proposed assessing a total civil penalty of $641,900 for the alleged violations.
The third Notice, CPF 3-2012-1005, alleged a violation of a Special Permit Order issued by
PHMSA on July 5, 2006 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $61,800 for this alleged
violation.
1 The REX West pipeline runs from Weld County, Colorado to Audrain County, Missouri. The REX East pipeline
runs from Audrain County, Missouri to Monroe County, Ohio.2



The alleged violations cited in these Notices involve, inter alia, welding procedures and
practices; weld inspections, testing and quality control; ditching, padding, lowering-in, and
backfilling; coating application and repairs; maximum allowable operating pressure design factor
in some Class 2 locations; depth of cover in certain areas; and other construction specifications
and standards.
On July 16, 2012, Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC (Respondent) submitted a combined response
to the Notices providing information concerning the extent to which it had cooperated with
PHMSA’s investigation and self-identified some of the alleged violations cited in the Notices.
Respondent also provided information concerning the corrective actions it has taken, reserved its
right to a hearing, and requested consultations with PHMSA on the disposition of all three
Notices. Respondent and PHMSA engaged in good faith settlement discussions resulting in this
Consent Agreement and Order.
Having agreed that settlement of this proceeding will avoid further administrative proceedings or
litigation and that entry of this Consent Agreement and Order is the most appropriate means of
resolving the Notices, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 190, without adjudication of any issue of fact or
law, and upon consent and agreement of Respondent and PHMSA (“the Parties”), the following
is agreed upon and Ordered:
I. General Provisions
1. Respondent acknowledges that Respondent and its pipeline system are subject to the
jurisdiction of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq., and the regulations and
administrative orders issued thereunder. For purposes of this Consent Agreement and Order,
Respondent acknowledges that it received proper notice of PHMSA’s action in this proceeding
and that the Notice states claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60101
et seq. and the regulations and orders issued thereunder.
2. Respondent, for purposes of this Consent Agreement and Order, does not contest the
allegations made in the Notices and agrees to abide by the terms of this Consent Agreement and
Order. Respondent agrees to pay the civil penalty as set forth in Section VI of this Consent
Agreement and Order, and agrees to achieve compliance by completing the actions specified in
Section II (“Work to be Performed”). These actions, including any work plans and schedules,
shall be automatically incorporated into this Consent Agreement and Order. This Consent
Agreement and Order does not constitute a finding of violation of any Federal law or regulation
and may not be used in any civil proceeding of any kind as evidence or proof of any fact, fault or
liability, or as evidence of the violation of any law, rule, regulation or requirement, except in a
proceeding to enforce the provisions of this Consent Agreement and Order.
3. Respondent consents to the issuance of this Consent Agreement and Order, and hereby
waives any further procedural requirements with respect to its issuance. Respondent waives all
rights to contest the Notices, or the validity of this Consent Agreement and Order, including all
rights to administrative or judicial hearings or appeals.
3



4. This Consent Agreement and Order shall apply to and be binding upon PHMSA, and
upon Respondent, its officers, directors, and employees, and its successors, assigns, or other
entities or persons otherwise bound by law. Respondent agrees to provide a copy of this Consent
Agreement and Order, and any incorporated work plans and schedules, to all of Respondent’s
officers, employees, and agents whose duties might reasonably include compliance with this
Consent Agreement and Order.
5. For all transfers of ownership or operating responsibility of Respondent’s REX pipeline,
Respondent shall provide a copy of this Consent Agreement and Order to the prospective
transferee at least 10 business days prior to such transfer and simultaneously provide written
notice of the prospective transfer to the PHMSA Regional Director who issued the Notices.
6. This Consent Agreement and Order constitutes the final, complete and exclusive
agreement and understanding between the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in this
Consent Agreement and Order, and the Parties acknowledge that there are no representations,
agreements or understandings relating to the settlement other than those expressly contained in
this Consent Agreement and Order, except that the terms of this Consent Agreement and Order
may be construed by reference to the Notices.
7. Nothing in this Consent Agreement and Order affects or relieves Respondent of its
responsibility to comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49
U.S.C. § 60101 et seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. Nothing in this
Consent Agreement and Order alters PHMSA’s right of access, entry, inspection, and
information gathering or PHMSA’s authority to bring enforcement actions against Respondent
pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, the regulations and orders issued thereunder, or any
other provision of Federal or State law.
8. This Consent Agreement and Order does not waive or modify any Federal, State, or local
laws or regulations that are applicable to Respondent’s pipeline systems. This Consent
Agreement and Order is not a permit, or a modification of any permit, under any Federal, State,
or local laws or regulations. Respondent remains responsible for achieving and maintaining
compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations and permits.
9. This Consent Agreement and Order does not create rights in, or grant any cause of action
to, any third party not party to this Agreement. The U.S. Department of Transportation is not
liable for any injuries or damages to persons or property arising from acts or omissions of
Respondent or its officers, employees, or agents carrying out the work required by this Consent
Agreement and Order. Respondent agrees to hold harmless the U.S. Department of
Transportation, its officers, employees, agents, and representatives from any and all causes of
action arising from any acts or omissions of Respondent or its contractors in carrying out the
work required by this Consent Agreement and Order.
4



II. Work to be Performed
10. Within 45 days of the Effective Date of this Consent Order and Agreement, Respondent
agrees to submit to the Director, Central Region, PHMSA (Regional Director) a plan and
schedule for completion of the actions set forth in the Proposed Compliance Order of the CPF 3-
2012-1003 Notice as follows:
(a) In regard to Items 3 and 8 of the Notice pertaining to the quality of girth weld radiographs
and Items 4 and 6 pertaining to girth weld defects, Respondent agrees to submit the
analysis for girth weld anomalies in the magnetic flux leakage in-line inspections it has
run in accordance with conditions 37 and 38 of the Special Permit Order, to develop and
implement a plan to address the potential for remaining girth weld defects resulting from
inadequate radiography or delayed cracking that was not identified during girth weld
remediation activities, and to submit these items to the Regional Director.
(b) Respondent agrees to maintain documentation of the costs associated with fulfilling the
requirements of paragraph (a) and to report the costs to the Regional Director in three
categories: (1) costs associated with testing, evaluations, studies, and information
analysis; (2) costs associated with preparation or revision of plans or procedures; and (3)
costs associated with physical changes to pipeline facilities, including repairs,
replacements and other modifications.
11. The Regional Director may grant an extension of time for completion of any of the work
to be performed hereunder upon a timely written request that demonstrates both good cause for
an extension and sufficient detail to evaluate Respondent’s good cause request.
III. Review and Approval Process
12. With respect to any submission under Section II of this Consent Agreement and Order
that requires the approval of the Regional Director, the Regional Director may: (a) approve, in
whole or in part, the submission, (b) approve the submission on specified conditions, (c)
disapprove, in whole or in part, the submission, or (d) any combination of the foregoing. In the
event of approval, approval in part, or approval upon conditions, Respondent will proceed to take
all action required by the submission as approved by the Regional Director, subject to
Respondent’s right to invoke the dispute resolution procedures in this section with respect to any
conditions identified by the Regional Director. In the event that the Regional Director
disapproves all or any portion of the submission, the Director will provide Respondent with a
written notice of the deficiencies. Respondent may seek review by the Associate Administrator
if Respondent disagrees with Regional Director and the decision by the Associate Administrator
will constitute final agency action with respect to the determination made on the submission.
Unless judicial review is sought by Respondent, upon receipt of the decision, Respondent will
correct all deficiencies within the time specified by the Director and resubmit it for approval.
5



IV. Enforcement of Agreement and Order
13. This Consent Agreement and Order is subject to all enforcement authorities available to
PHMSA under 49 U.S.C. § 60101 et seq. and 49 C.F.R. Part 190, including administrative civil
penalties under § 60122 of up to $200,000 per violation for each day the violation continues, if
PHMSA determines that Respondent is not proceeding in accordance with terms of the Consent
Agreement and Order, in accordance with determinations made by the Regional Director, or if
appealed, in accordance with decisions of the Associate Administrator. All work plans and
associated schedules set forth or referenced in Section II shall be automatically incorporated into
this Consent Agreement and Order and are enforceable in the same manner.
V. Record Keeping and Information Disclosure
14. Respondent agrees to maintain records demonstrating compliance with all requirements
of this Consent Agreement and Order for a period of at least five years following completion of
all work to be performed. For any reports, plans, or other deliverables required to be submitted
to PHMSA pursuant to this Consent Agreement and Order, Respondent may assert a claim of
business confidentiality or other protections applicable to the release of information by PHMSA,
covering part or all of the information required to be submitted to PHMSA pursuant to this
agreement in accordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 7. The claim of confidentiality shall be marked in
writing on each page, and shall include a statement specifying the grounds for each claim of
confidentiality. PHMSA shall determine release of any information submitted pursuant to this
Consent Agreement and Order in accordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 7, the Freedom of Information
Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, DOT and/or PHMSA policies, and other applicable regulations and
Executive Orders.
VI. Civil Penalties
15. Respondent agrees to pay $945,900 in civil penalties no later than 10 business days
following the Effective Date of this Consent Agreement and Order. Federal regulations (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.
16. Failure to pay the $945,900 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.
6



17. At the time of payment, Respondent agrees to simultaneously send written notice of the
payment and a copy of the payment transmittal documentation to:
David Barrett
Director, Central Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
901 Locust Street, Suite 462
Kansas City, MO 64106
Rod Dyck
Director of Enforcement
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Room E24-302
Washington, DC 20590
18. Respondent agrees that the civil penalty payment specified in paragraph 15 will not be
deductible by Respondent or any of its affiliates for purposes of Federal taxes.
VII. Effective Date
19. The “Effective Date” as used herein is the date on which this Consent Agreement and
Order has been signed by both Respondent and PHMSA. Unless specified to the contrary, all
deadlines for actions required by this Consent Agreement and Order run from the Effective Date
of this Consent Agreement and Order.
VIII. Modification
20. The terms of this Consent Agreement and Order may be modified by mutual agreement
of the parties. Such modifications shall be in writing and shall be signed by both parties.
IX. Termination
21. This Consent Agreement and Order shall terminate upon payment of the civil penalty and
the completion of all terms set forth in Section II (Work to Be Performed) as determined by the
Director, Central Region. Respondent may request written confirmation from PHMSA when this
Consent Agreement and Order is terminated. Nothing in this Consent Agreement and Order
prevents Respondent from completing any of the obligations earlier than the deadlines provided
for herein.
7



X. Ratification
22. The parties undersigned representatives certify that they are fully authorized to enter into
the terms and conditions of this Consent Agreement and Order and to execute and legally bind
such party to this document.
23. The Parties hereby agree to all conditions and terms of this Consent Agreement and
Order:
For Respondent:
______________________________________
Mr. M. Dwayne Burton
Vice President, Operations and Engineering
Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC
______________________________________
Date
For PHMSA:
Respondent is hereby ordered to comply with the terms of this Consent Agreement and Order,
effective immediately.
_______________________________________
Mr. Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety
PHMSA
_______________________________________
Date
8

320121003_NOPV PCP PCO_06152012_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
UPS NEXT DAY AIR
June 15, 2012
Mr. M. Dwayne Burton
Vice President, Operations and Engineering
Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.
500 Dallas Street, Suite 1000
Houston, Texas 77002
CPF 3-2012-1003
Dear Mr. Burton:
The western portion of Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC’s pipeline system (REX West) is a
713-mile, 42-inch diameter pipeline that transports natural gas from Weld County,
Colorado, to Audrain County, Missouri. In calendar years 2007 and 2008, Kinder
Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (KM) built and began its operation. Representatives from
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to
Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected the construction and initial operations of
REX West on numerous occasions from July 2007 through January 2008.
As a result of these inspections, 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. §192.225 Welding Procedures
(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder in accordance with
welding procedures qualified under section 5 of API 1104 (incorporated by
reference, see §192.7) or section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code “ Welding and Brazing Qualifications” (incorporated by reference, see
1



§192.7) to produce welds meeting the requirements of this subpart. The
quality of the test welds used to qualify welding procedures shall be
determined by destructive testing in accordance with the applicable welding
standard(s).
KM did not properly qualify welding procedure RX8-01 to be utilized on REX
West. KM provided welding procedure qualification records 754-P, 754-AF,
754-AL, 754-AR, and 754-AW documenting the testing performed to qualify
Welding Procedure RX8-01. Test Certificate 754-P indicates one root bend test
unacceptable; therefore, this procedure failed to pass all of the destructive tests as
required by API 1104. After the non-compliance was observed by PHMSA on
July 16, 2007, KM re-qualified Welding Procedure RX8-01 on July 23, 2007.
2. §192.225 Welding Procedures
(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder in accordance with
welding procedures qualified under section 5 of API 1104 (incorporated by
reference, see §192.7) or section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code “ Welding and Brazing Qualifications” (incorporated by reference, see
§192.7) to produce welds meeting the requirements of this subpart. The
quality of the test welds used to qualify welding procedures shall be
determined by destructive testing in accordance with the applicable welding
standard(s).
KM performed welding at certain locations during the construction of REX West
that was not in accordance with welding procedures it had qualified under API
1104. The deficiencies are:
Date Description
Various Certain weld repairs made on Spread 5 were not performed in
accordance with welding procedures qualified under section 5 of
API 1104. KM utilized an electrode that was not specified in its
repair welding procedure. An EWI Microalloying contract
welding inspector first identified this problem and informed the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) inspector who was
under contract to provide inspection services to PHMSA on the
REX West project. The ORNL inspector investigated 102 girth
welds that had been made with an electrode not specified in
KM’s repair welding procedure. The welds were later re-
repaired utilizing the correct electrode.
2



August 7,
2007
While auditing spread 5, PHMSA personnel observed
mechanized welders not following a qualified welding procedure
during the startup of construction. KM developed welding
procedures REX-A-WPS1 and REX-A-WPS3, which specify a
122 ºF preheat. PHMSA personnel observed workers heating
the pipe to around 250 ºF and then letting it cool before welding
commenced. The welders then started to weld at preheat values
between 150 ºF and 200 ºF. The workers were not following the
qualified welding procedure that specified a 122 ºF preheat.
Welding with this procedure had started earlier that same week.
August
30, 2007
PHMSA personnel observed KM welders that were not
following qualified welding procedure RX8-01A for shielded
metal arc welding and flux-cored arc welding on one occasion.
The welding procedure specified a gas flow rate of from 35 to 50
cfh for the gas shielded flux-cored arc welding process.
PHMSA personnel observed tie-in welders utilizing the gas
shielded flux-cored arc welding process with the gas flow
regulators set wide open. KM subsequently investigated this and
measured the gas flow with a turbine meter and it was
determined that a wide-open flow meter delivers approximately
60 cfh. The welding was not being performed in accordance
with the qualified welding procedure.
October
25, 2007
While auditing Spread 5, PHMSA personnel observed
mechanized welding on 42” diameter, 0.555” thick Berg pipe in
which welders were not following the welding procedure. The
qualified welding procedure specified a maximum interpass
temperature of 253 ºF. PHMSA observed welding being
performed with interpass temperatures of 267 ºF and 270 ºF.
When questioned, the welding inspectors, and welders were
unaware of the specific requirements of welding procedure
REX-A-WPS17 that was specifically developed to weld the
Berg pipe. The welders did not follow the qualified procedure
for welding the Berg pipe. Welding with this procedure had
been performed for 3 days prior to PHMSA personnel
identifying this issue.
3. §192.243 Nondestructive testing.
(a) Nondestructive testing of welds must be performed by any process, other
than trepanning, that will clearly indicate defects that may affect the
integrity of the weld.
3



KM’s process for nondestructive testing of welds did not clearly indicate defects
that may have affected the integrity of the welds on REX West. KM utilized
radiography to examine completed manual girth welds for defects. During the
construction of REX East, radiographic irregularities were identified during a
review conducted by ORNL under contract to PHMSA. At PHMSA’s direction,
KM conducted a review of the REX West radiographs. As a result, it was
determined that 859 of the 7229 radiographs reviewed were not acceptable to
either API 1104 or KM’s construction standards. These radiographs either had
not been properly taken or were improperly interpreted.
KM then developed a program to further evaluate the deficient radiographs,
obtain acceptable radiographs as necessary, and then repair or cut out the girth
welds that contained defects that had not previously been identified by the
nondestructive testing and repaired during the initial construction. Based on the
radiographic review requested by PHMSA, 64 welds containing defects that were
not found during the construction phase of REX West required repair after the
pipeline facilities were placed into natural gas service.
4. §192.245 Repair or removal of defects.
(b) Each weld that is repaired must have the defect removed down to sound
which would adversely affect the quality of the weld repair. After repair, the
metal and the segment to be repaired must be preheated if conditions exist
segment of the weld that was repaired must be inspected to ensure its
acceptability.
For certain welds that were repaired, KM did not remove the defect down to
sound metal as required for those welds that were found to be unacceptable under
§192.241(c). KM identified many mechanized girth weld defects on the REX
West pipeline that were discovered and repaired during construction. Nine of the
repaired areas were later found to contain through-wall defects during the
pipeline’s hydrostatic test. These welds had not been properly repaired by
removing the defect down to sound metal and preheating as necessary to prevent
delayed hydrogen cracking.
In response to the defective welds found during hydrotests, KM initiated a repair
weld re-inspection program that consisted of 260 welds. As a result of the
additional re-inspection program KM, discovered another 7 welds that had
already been placed into service that contained unacceptable defects. These welds
were not removed or repaired by removing the defect down to sound metal, but
were covered with a pressure containing welded sleeve. KM also failed to ensure
that each repair weld on REX West was properly inspected to ensure its
acceptability since these girth welds that contained unacceptable defects were not
removed or repaired during the pipeline’s construction.
4



5. §192.303 Compliance with specifications or standards.
Each transmission line or main must be constructed in accordance with
comprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with
this part.
KM did not construct REX West in accordance with written specifications in
certain locations.
KM procedure C1080 Item 2.3 specifies:
Contractor shall be responsible for application of coating according to the
Manufacturer's specifications and requirements of the Company
Representative.
KM did not apply coating to certain girth welds within the temperature range
specified by the manufacturer. KM utilized 3M 6233 fusion bonded epoxy for
coating girth welds on the pipeline. 3M specifies an application temperature of
425 ºF to 488 ºF. PHMSA personnel observed workers on 5 occasions through
Spreads 1, 6, and 7 not heating the pipe to a level within the proper temperature
range required by the manufacturer’s specifications. The observations of
inadequate application temperatures were made on August 10, 2007, and August
21, 2007, on Spread 1; October 16, 2007, on Spread 6; and August 14, 2007, and
November 28, 2007, on Spread 7.
KM procedure C1080 Item 7.9 specifies:
To repair pinholes in epoxy coatings, the original coated surface shall be
thoroughly cleaned and lightly abraded with sandpaper (approximate
area 0.5-inch radius around pinhole). All dust shall be removed before
applying a patch stick. The cleaned pipe surface shall be heated until the
patch stick begins to melt when rubbed over the heated area. Material
shall be applied to obtain a minimum thickness of 15 mils over the entire
abraded area.
KM procedure C1080 Item 7.10 specifies:
Holidays larger than 0.5 square-inch shall not be repaired using patch
sticks. Contractor shall use coatings specified for large area repairs and
apply coating in conformance with Manufacturer’s recommendations.
Workers failed to follow KM procedures limiting holiday repairs using patch
sticks to holidays smaller than 0.5 square-inches. PHMSA personnel observed
workers repairing holidays larger than 0.5 square-inches with patch sticks on 3
5



occasions. These observations were made on August 8, 2007, on Spread 4; and
on September 19, 2007, and February 12, 2008, on Spread 6.
6. §192.305 Inspection: General.
Each transmission line or main must be inspected to ensure that it is
constructed in accordance with this part.
KM did not adequately inspect the welding on its REX West transmission line at
certain locations to ensure it was constructed in accordance with Part 192. KM
contracted with Gulf Interstate to supply a Senior Welding Inspector and
dedicated welding inspectors on each of the construction spreads. Nevertheless,
as set forth in Item 2 above, PHMSA identified 3 instances of welding that had
not been performed in accordance with a qualified welding procedure. In each of
these cases, welding had already been performed when PHMSA personnel
observed that the qualified procedures were not being followed. If KM’s
inspectors had adequately inspected the welding processes, the workers’ failure
to follow the qualified procedure would have been identified and corrected. The
welding inspectors did not inspect the construction activity in a manner that
ensured the transmission line was constructed in accordance with applicable
requirements and Part 192.
7. §192.305 Inspection: General.
Each transmission line or main must be inspected to ensure that it is
constructed in accordance with this part.
KM did not adequately inspect the coating of its transmission line at certain
locations to ensure it was constructed in accordance with this part. KM hired a
dedicated pipe coating inspector on each of the construction spreads. As set forth
in Items 5, 11, and 12, KM did not apply or repair coating at certain locations as
required. Had KM adequately inspected the coating work, the workers’ failure to
follow the procedure for pipe coating would have been identified and corrected.
In many cases, coating work had already been performed and the problems had to
be discovered by PHMSA after the fact. The coating inspectors did not inspect
the coating work in a manner that ensured the transmission line was constructed
in accordance with applicable requirements and Part 192.
8. §192.305 Inspection: General.
Each transmission line or main must be inspected to ensure that it is
constructed in accordance with this part.
KM did not adequately inspect the nondestructive testing of its transmission line
to ensure it was constructed in accordance with this part. As set forth in Item 3
above, KM failed to adequately inspect the radiographic practices and film
6



interpretation utilized during the construction of the Steele City, Meeker,
Julesburg, Cheyenne, Turney, Wamsutter, Bertrand, Big Hole, Arlington,
Arlington expansion, Echo Springs Meter, Echo Springs Lateral, Echo Springs
Compressor, Echo Springs Field, Lost Creek Meter, KMIGT Meter, and NGPL
Meter sections of REX West. If KM had adequately inspected the nondestructive
testing of the girth welds during construction, the defective girth welds would
have been identified by the inspector. KM did not inspect the construction in a
manner that ensured the transmission line was constructed in accordance with
applicable requirements and Part 192.
9. §192.319 Installation of pipe in a ditch
(a) When installed in a ditch, each transmission line that is to be operated at
a pressure producing a hoop stress of 20 percent or more of SMYS must be
installed so that the pipe fits the ditch so as to minimize stresses and protect
the pipe coating from damage.
KM failed to install pipe within a ditch to minimize the stresses on the pipe by
ensuring it fit properly within the ditch. During the week of November 26, 2007,
PHMSA personnel observed workers on Spread 7 preparing to lower a continuous
section of welded pipe into the ditch that was approximately 1-3/4 miles long.
The maximum distance between open ends was greater than 5,000 feet, which is
contrary to KM’s written construction procedures for minimizing stresses that
requires that “open ends shall be a maximum distance of 5,000 feet apart (or less
when required by terrain or land use).” When questioned, the Chief Inspector
acknowledged that line sections were lowered in as welded and no additional cuts
were made or other action taken to minimize stresses during installation into the
ditch.
10. §192.319 Installation of pipe in a ditch
(b) When a ditch for a transmission line or main is backfilled, it must be
backfilled in a manner that:
(2) Prevents damage to the pipe and pipe coating from equipment or from
the backfill material.
KM failed to prevent damage to the pipe and pipe coating from the trench and
backfill material at various locations on REX West.
PHMSA personnel received reports that indicated that sections of Spread 5 pipe
had been backfilled with rocks that damaged the pipe coating (and potentially the
pipe). In addition, the contractor did not install rock shield around the pipe or use
rock shakers (devices to separate rock from the backfill material) as required to
prevent damage from rocks. KM excavated the completed pipeline at about 100
locations to remediate indications from in-line inspection (ILI) tools and Direct
Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG) surveys performed after the pipeline had been
7



placed into service. These excavations were witnessed by PHMSA personnel and
KM contract inspectors. At approximately 19 of the locations dents, rocks in the
backfill, and/or pipeline in contact with solid rock were identified.
Four of the excavations also showed evidence that the pipeline was backfilled
before the wet two-part epoxy that had been applied to the girth welds had
completely cured, causing the coating to be a mixture of dirt and epoxy.
11. §192.461 External corrosion control: Protective coating.
(c) Each external protective coating must be inspected just prior to lowering
the pipe into the ditch and backfilling, and any damage detrimental to
effective corrosion control must be repaired.
KM did not inspect each protective coating just prior to lowering the pipe into the
ditch during portions of the REX West construction. PHMSA personnel observed
workers on Spread 3 and 5 that were not removing building insulation from the
pipe. The workmen were manipulating the electronic holiday detector’s spring to
jump over the attached insulation. The building insulation was used to pad the
pipe from the skids. Certain areas of the coating could not be visually or
electronically inspected because the building insulation had not been removed.
KM procedure C1080 Item 7.3 also specifies that buried coated facilities shall
pass both a visual and electrical holiday detector test as the pipe is lowered into
the ditch.
12. §192.461 External corrosion control: Protective coating.
(c) Each external protective coating must be inspected just prior to lowering
the pipe into the ditch and backfilling, and any damage detrimental to
effective corrosion control must be repaired.
KM did not repair damaged coating detrimental to effective corrosion control at
certain locations during the REX West construction. During the week of August
27, 2007, PHMSA personnel observed workmen on Spread 3 that were not
repairing visible coating damage that had occurred as a result of the welding
bands utilized. Spread 3 utilized RMS Welding Systems’ bands that were found to
cause visible damage to the thin film epoxy coating on the pipe. Coating defects
caused by band damage were found adjacent to 2 girth welds that had been
lowered-in the ditch and 10 other girth welds that had been through the pre-
jeeping process. Given the nature of the coating damage, these areas were not
identified by the electrical holiday detectors so the workers were not repairing
them, even though the coating damage was clearly visible.
13. §192.619 Maximum allowable operating pressure - Steel or plastic pipelines
8



(a) No person may operate a segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a pressure
that exceeds a maximum allowable operating pressure determined under
paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, or the lowest of the following:
(1) The design pressure of the weakest element in the segment,
determined in accordance with subparts C and D of this part.
§192.111 Design factor for steel pipe.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section,
the design factor to be used in the design formula in §192.105 is determined in
accordance with the following table
Class location Design factor (F)
1 0.72
2 0.60
KM established the maximum allowable operating pressure of REX West at
various locations at a pressure that exceeded the design pressure of the pipe and
placed the pipeline into service on or about April 28, 2008. KM used a Class 1
design factor to establish the maximum allowable operating pressure of 1480 psig
in 4 pipeline segments totaling about 3500 feet of pipe that were actually located
in Class 2 areas. Most of the pipe was installed near the town of Renick, Missouri
in the summer of 2008. KM did not use the proper Class 2 design factor of 0.60,
which would establish the maximum allowable operating pressure at 1110 psig,
rather than the 1480 psig.
The maximum allowable operating pressure of the pipe was calculated using a
Class 1 design factor of 0.8 (PHMSA Grant of Waiver to §192.111 - Docket No.
PHMSA-2006-23998). The Waiver PHMSA granted to Rockies Express
authorizes the use of a design factor of 0.8 only in Class 1 areas, not in Class 2
areas. KM subsequently took the pipeline out of service and replaced the pipe
using Class 2 design factors on or about September 3, 2008.
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 relat
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 44229