{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320131017M","title":"NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CO OF AMERICA (KMI) — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-08-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 192.616(b), 192.616(c), 192.616(g), 192.616(i), 192.917(b), 192.917(e)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320131017m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320131017m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320131017m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320131017M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CO OF AMERICA (KMI). PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.616(b),  192.616(c),  192.616(g),  192.616(i),  192.917(b),  192.917(e)(1). The case was opened on 2013-08-28 and is reported as closed as of 2015-12-16. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320131017M_Closure Letter_12162015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320131017M/320131017M_Closure%20Letter_12162015.pdf\n\n320131017M_Closure Letter_12162015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320131017M/320131017M_Closure%20Letter_12162015_text.pdf\n\n320131017M_Notice of Amendment_08282013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320131017M/320131017M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_08282013.pdf\n\n320131017M_Notice of Amendment_08282013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320131017M/320131017M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_08282013_text.pdf\n\n320131017M_Operator Response to Notice_11262013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320131017M/320131017M_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_11262013.pdf\n\n320131017M_Closure Letter_12162015_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nDecember 16, 2015\nMr. Tom Martin\nPresident, Natural Gas Pipelines\nKinder Morgan, Inc.\n1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000\nHouston, Texas 77002\nCPF 3-2013-1017M\nDear Mr. Martin:\nOn August 24-25, 2010, and April 20-21, 2011, representatives from the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to chapter 601 of 49\nUnited States Code, conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Kinder Morgan,\nInc.’s (Kinder Morgan) procedures for Public Awareness and Damage Prevention\nEvaluation in Lakewood, Colorado. As a result of the inspection, Kinder Morgan was\nissued a Notice of Amendment on August 28, 2013, which proposed amendment of your\nprocedures.\nKinder Morgan submitted its amended procedures on November 26, 2013. My staff\nreviewed the amended procedures, and it appears that the inadequacies outlined in this\nNotice of Amendment have been corrected.\nThis letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is now closed.\nThank you for your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nAllan C. Beshore\nDirector, Central Region, OPS\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n320131017M_Notice of Amendment_08282013_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nAugust 28, 2013\nMr. Gary Buchler\nVice President Engineering Operations\nKMI Pipeline\n1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000\nHouston, Texas 77002\nCPF 3-2013-1017M\nDear Mr. Buchler:\nOn August 24- 25, 2010, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected\nRockies Express Pipeline LLC (Rockies Express) procedures for Public Awareness and\nDamage Prevention in Lakewood, Colorado. Rockies Express Pipeline LLC has since been\npurchased by Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission Company.\nOn April 20-21, 2011, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected\nKinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (Kinder Morgan) procedures for Public Awareness\nProgram Effectiveness Evaluation in Lakewood, Colorado.\nOn the basis of these inspections, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found\nwithin Rockies Express and Kinder Morgan plans or procedures, as described below:\n1. § 192.616 Public awareness.\n(b) The operator's program must follow the general program\nrecommendations of API RP 1162 and assess the unique attributes and\ncharacteristics of the operator's pipeline and facilities.\n\n\n\nKinder Morgan’s procedures are inadequate because its Public Awareness Program does\nnot include a process to provide the line size on county specific maps provided for natural\ngas assets. Instead, the PAP refers stakeholders to the National Pipeline Mapping System\n(NPMS) for more details. Consequently, the PAP process does not document line size\ninformation on maps, does not verify that details have been submitted to NPMS, and\noverlooks the non-availability to the general public.\n2. § 192.616 Public awareness.\n(c)The operator must follow the general program recommendations, including\nbaseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless the operator\nprovides justification in its program or procedural manual as to why\ncompliance with all or certain provisions of the recommended practice is not\npracticable and not necessary for safety.\nKinder Morgan’s procedures are inadequate because its Public Awareness/Damage\nPrevention Program is not documented in the Operations and Maintenance or the Public\nAwareness/Damage Prevention manuals that address stakeholder feedback received by the\ncompany. Kinder Morgan must have a documented procedure to manage the stakeholder\nfeedback they receive. This procedure should include how the feedback is recorded and\nany changes to the program based on stakeholder feedback.\nKinder Morgan’s procedures are inadequate because its Public Awareness Program does\nnot include a process to communicate the product transported to the appropriate\nstakeholders and place the line size (or range of line size operated) along with the product\ntype on maps provided to emergency responders or provide justification in its program.\nKinder Morgan’s procedures are inadequate because its Public Awareness Program does\nnot provide guidance on the process to conduct the annual implementation review and\naddress any needed changes, does not guide the annual supplemental review along the\nentire pipeline by stakeholder audience and does not provide an annual implementation\nsummary of what has been considered, what has been noted for improvement, who is\nresponsible, when will it be done and when it is completed. Annual review should\ndocument decisions such as increasing the affected public buffer from the potential impact\nradius (PIR) to 1320 feet.\nKinder Morgan’s procedures are inadequate because its Public Awareness Program does\nnot include a written process for measuring the bottom-line results. The PAP does not\ndetail the information being reviewed and analyzed on an annual basis. In addition, Kinder\nMorgan must document the results of the annual implementation and effectiveness\nevaluation meetings. This summary should include the results of any surveys or other\nevaluation methods performed throughout the previous year, other public awareness and\n2\n\n\n\ndamage prevention activities, any action items identified along with implementation/\ncompletion date and any changes identified for the Kinder Morgan Public\nAwareness/Damage Prevention program including along with the completion date. The\nannual implementation review and the effectiveness evaluation summaries must be\navailable for periodic review by the appropriate regulatory agencies.\nKinder Morgan’s procedures are inadequate because its Public Awareness Program does\nnot have a process defined that identifies changes, tracks changes and tracks progress in\nmaking changes based on the findings of the effectiveness evaluation.\n3. § 192.616 Public awareness.\n(g) The program must be conducted in English and in other languages\ncommonly understood by a significant number and concentration of the non-\nEnglish speaking population in the operator's area.\nKinder Morgan’s procedures are inadequate because its Public Awareness Program does\nnot include a process to address the identification of the non-English speaking population in\nthe operator’s area.\n4. § 192.616 Public awareness.\n(i) The operator’s program documentation and evaluation results must be\navailable for periodic review by appropriate regulatory agencies.\nKinder Morgan’s procedures are inadequate because its Public Awareness/Damage\nPrevention program does not have a documented procedure in the Operations and\nMaintenance or the Public Awareness/Damage Prevention manuals to analyze and address\nfindings on excavation-related events. Kinder Morgan must have a documented procedure\non how excavation-related events are analyzed and the related findings are incorporated\nback into the public awareness and damage prevention program.\n5. § 192.917 How does an operator identify potential threats to pipeline integrity\nand use the threat identification in its integrity program?\n(b) Data gathering and integration. To identify and evaluate the potential\nthreats to a covered pipeline segment, an operator must gather and integrate\nexisting data and information on the entire pipeline that could be relevant to\nthe covered segment. In performing this data gathering and integration, an\noperator must follow the requirements in ASME.ANSI B31.8S, section 4. At a\nminimum, an operator must gather and evaluate the set of data specified in\nAppendix A to ASME.ANSI B31.8S, and consider both the covered segment\nand similar non-covered segments, past records, continuing surveillance\nrecords, patrolling records, maintenance history, internal inspection records\nand all other conditions specific to each pipeline.\n3\n\n\n\nKinder Morgan’s procedures are inadequate because its Public Awareness/Damage\nPrevention Program does not include a process for damage prevention threats that will be\ncollected, assessed, and integrated into the threat identification portion of the Integrity\nManagement Program in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the Operations and Maintenance\nProcedures. Kinder Morgan’s process must adequately guide the identification of damage\nprevention threats that will be collected, assessed, and integrated into the threat\nidentification portion of their Integrity Management Program.\n6. § 192.917 How does an operator identify potential threats to pipeline\nintegrity and use the threat identification in its integrity program?\n(e) Actions to address particular threats. If an operator identified any of the\nfollowing threats, the operator must take the following actions to address the\nthreat.\n(1) Third party damage. An operator must utilize the data integration required\nin paragraph (b) of the section and ASME.ANSI B31.8S, Appendix A7 to\ndetermine the susceptibility of each covered segment to the threat of third\nparty damage. If an operator identifies the threat of third party damage, the\noperator must implement comprehensive additional preventive measure in\naccordance with 192.395 and monitor the effectiveness of the preventive\nmeasure. If, in conducting a baseline assessment under 192.921, or a\nreassessment under 192.937, an operator uses an internal inspection tool or\nexternal correction direct assessment, the operator must integrate data from\nthese assessments with data related to any encroachment of foreign line\ncrossing on the covered segment, to define where potential indications or third\nparty damage may exist in the covered segment.\nAn operator must also have procedures in its integrity management program\naddressing actions it will take to respond to findings from this data integration.\nKinder Morgan’s procedures are inadequate because its Public Awareness/Damage\nPrevention Program does not specify how reports of third party damage are\ncompared against One-Call tickets. Furthermore, the procedures do not address\nhow information obtained through this process is to be implemented into the\nIntegrity Management and Public Awareness/Damage Prevention Programs.\nResponse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.237.\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline\nOperators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the\nresponse options. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this\nenforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that\nany portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5\nU.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a\nsecond copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential\n4\n\n\n\ntreatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond\nwithin 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to\ncontest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for\nPipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you\nand to issue a Final Order.\nIf, after opportunity for a hearing, your plans or procedures are found inadequate as alleged\nin this Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans or procedures to correct the\ninadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.237). If you are not contesting this Notice, we propose that\nyou submit your amended procedures to my office within 30 days of receipt of this Notice.\nThis period may be extended by written request for good cause. Once the inadequacies\nidentified herein have been addressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement action\nwill be closed.\nIn correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2013-1017M and, for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nLinda Daugherty\nDirector, Central Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\ncc: Buzz Fant\n5","truncated":false,"body_characters":13502}