{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320155008","title":"PEMBINA COCHIN LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2015-10-30","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.428(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320155008.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320155008.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320155008","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320155008","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PEMBINA COCHIN LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.428(a). The case was opened on 2015-10-30 and is reported as closed as of 2016-12-29. Proposed civil penalty: $51,400. Assessed civil penalty: $36,300. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320155008_Final Order_12292016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320155008/320155008_Final%20Order_12292016.pdf\n\n320155008_Final Order_12292016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320155008/320155008_Final%20Order_12292016_text.pdf\n\n320155008_NOPV PCP PCO_10302015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320155008/320155008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_10302015.pdf\n\n320155008_NOPV PCP PCO_10302015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320155008/320155008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_10302015_text.pdf\n\n320155008_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing_01042016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320155008/320155008_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing_01042016.pdf\n\n320155008_NOPV PCP PCO_10302015_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nOctober 30, 2015\nMr. Ron McClain\nVice President – Engineering and Operations\nKinder Morgan Cochin, LLC\n500 Dallas Street, Suite 1000\nHouston, Texas 77002\nCPF 3-2015-5008\nDear Mr. McClain:\nOn June 11-15, 2012, and July 23-27, 2012, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to\nChapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected your Cochin hazardous liquid pipeline in\nthe areas of Charles City, Iowa, and Jamestown, North Dakota.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that Kinder Morgan Cochin, LLC (KM) has\ncommitted probable violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal\nRegulations. The items inspected and the probable violation(s) are:\n\n\n\n1. 2. §195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in\nthe case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to\nexceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each\npressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of\npressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in\ngood mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity\nand reliability of operation for the service in which it is used.\nKM failed to inspect and test each highly volatile liquids pump station pressure\nlimiting device to determine that it was functioning properly, in good mechanical\ncondition, and adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability.\nKM uses an electrical communication loop for operation of the overpressure\nprotection system at its pump stations. This communication loop is from the\npressure sensing line, to the transmitter, to the programmable logic controller, to the\nvariable frequency drive or variable speed drive, and to the pump. In this scenario\nthe “pressure limiting device” is the entire communication loop, since all of these\ndevices must be functioning properly for pressure control. Therefore, the entire loop\nmust be inspected to meet the requirement of §195.428. KM only inspected the\ntransmitters and failed to inspect any other portion of the communication loop for\nfour (4) inspection cycles from October 2010 to April 2012 at the Masonville Pump\nStation in Iowa.\n§195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in\nthe case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to\nexceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each\npressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of\npressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in\ngood mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity\nand reliability of operation for the service in which it is used.\nKM failed to adequately inspect and test the pressure limiting device at the highly\nvolatile liquids Alameda Pump Station for function at the proper pressure limit.\nInspection records of the Alameda Pump Station indicate that the pressure limiting\ndevice was set at 1200 psig on June 22, 2011, and 1300 psig on October 24, 2011,\nwhich are both above 110% of the 1000 psig maximum operating pressure limit.\n2\n\n\n\n3. §195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or\nin the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not\nto exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test\neach pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item\nof pressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly,\nis in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of\ncapacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used.\nKM did not inspect and test the highly volatile liquids Alameda Pump Station at\nintervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year. KM did\nnot have any records of inspection conducted on the pressure limiting devices at the\nstation between June 1, 2010, and June 22, 2011. An inspection should have\noccurred no later than December 31, 2010. Therefore the inspection interval was\nexceeded by five (5) months and 22 days.\n(Note: The Alameda Pump Station in Canada provides overpressure protection for\nPHMSA’s regulated segment from Milepost 621 at the Canadian/US border to\nMilepost 652 at Maxbass Pump Station, North Dakota.)\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a\nrelated series of violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum\npenalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to\nexceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed\nthe circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violations\nand has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $51,400 as\nfollows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $15,100\n2 $14,700\n3 $21,600\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item 1 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, The Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Kinder\nMorgan Cochin, LLC. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed\nand made a part of this Notice.\n3\n\n\n\nResponse to this Notice\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 response\noptions. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made\npublicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document\nyou must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted\ninformation qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not\nrespond within 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 and to\nissue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2015-5008 and for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nAllan C. Beshore\nDirector, Central Region, OPS\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n4\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Kinder Morgan Cochin, LLC a Compliance\nOrder incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of\nKinder Morgan Cochin, LLC with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regard to Item 1 of the Notice pertaining to inspecting and testing its\npressure limiting devices, Kinder Morgan shall amend it practices and\nprocedures to include the entire electrical communication loop which\ncontrols its overpressure protection devices. Kinder Morgan shall submit the\namended procedure manual within 90 days of the Final Order. KM shall\nthen conduct an inspection of its overpressure protection devices in\naccordance with its amended procedure within 180 days of the Final Order.\n2. It is requested (not mandated) that Kinder Morgan Cochin, LLC maintain\ndocumentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this\nCompliance Order and submit the total to Allan C. Beshore, Director,\nCentral Region, OPS, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories:\n1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures,\nstudies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements,\nadditions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n5\n\n320155008_Final Order_12292016_text.pdf\n\nDecember 29, 2016\nMr. Steven J. Kean\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nKinder Morgan Inc.\n1001 Louisiana Street\nHouston, TX 77002-5089\nRe: CPF No. 3-2015-5008\nDear Mr. Kean:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolations and assesses a civil penalty of $36,300. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of\nthe full penalty amount, by wire transfer, dated April 26, 2016. This enforcement action is now\nclosed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing,\nor as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region, OPS\nMr. Wayne G. Simmons, VP – Engineering and Operations, Kinder Morgan Cochin,\nLLC, 500 Dallas Street, Suite 1000, Houston , Texas 77002\n(email) Mr. Vince Murchison, Esquire\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nKinder Morgan Cochin, LLC ) CPF No. 3-2015-5008\na Kinder Morgan Company )\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn July 23-27, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Kinder Morgan\nCochin, LLC (Kinder Morgan Cochin or Respondent) in the areas of Charles City, Iowa, and\nJamestown, North Dakota. Kinder Morgan Cochin operates 1,239 miles of highly volatile liquid\nfrom North Dakota, through Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio.\n1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated October 30, 2015, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that Kinder Morgan Cochin had committed multiple violations of 49 C.F.R. §\n195.428 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $51,400 for the alleged violations. The Notice\nalso proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated January 4, 2016 (Response). With respect to\nItem 1 of the Notice only, Kinder Morgan Cochin contested the alleged violation, presented\ninformation seeking mitigation of the proposed penalty, and requested a hearing. The company\ndid not contest the allegations of violation and associated civil penalty for Items 2 and 3 of the\nNotice. By letter dated March 17, 2016, the Director informed Respondent that Item 1 of the\nNotice and its associated Proposed Civil Penalty and Proposed Compliance Order would be\nwithdrawn. By letter dated April 26, 2016 (Supplemental Response), Respondent withdrew its\nrequest for a hearing and thereby waived its right to one and authorized the entry of this Final\nOrder without further notice. Further, Respondent paid the full penalty amount for Items 2 and 3\nby wire transfer dated April 26, 2016.\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Oct. 30, 2015) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2015-5008\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:\n§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in\nthe case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to\nexceed 7 ½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each\npressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of\npressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in\ngood mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity\nand reliability of operation for the service in which it is used.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test\neach highly volatile liquids pump station pressure limiting device to determine that it was\nfunctioning properly, in good mechanical condition, and adequate from the standpoint of\ncapacity and reliability. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Kinder Morgan Cochin’s uses an\nelectrical communication loop for operation of the overpressure protection system at its pump\nstations. This communication loop is from the pressure sensing line, to the transmitter, to the\nprogrammable logic controller, to the variable frequency drive or variable speed drive, and to the\npump. In this scenario the \"pressure limiting device\" is the entire communication loop, since all\nof these devices must be functioning properly for pressure control. The Notice alleged that the\nentire loop must be inspected to meet the requirement of §195.428 but that Kinder Morgan\nCochin only inspected the transmitters and did not inspect any other portion of the\ncommunication loop for four (4) inspection cycles from October 2010 to April 2012 at the\nMasonville Pump Station in Iowa.\nRespondent contested the alleged violation, presented information seeking mitigation of the\nproposed penalty, and requested a hearing. As a result, by letter dated March 17, 2016, the\nDirector informed Respondent that Item 1 of the Notice and its associated Proposed Civil Penalty\nand Proposed Compliance Order would be withdrawn. Accordingly, this alleged violation is\nwithdrawn.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:\n§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in\nthe case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to\nexceed 7 ½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each\npressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of\npressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in\ngood mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity\nand reliability of operation for the service in which it is used.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2015-5008\nPage 3\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to adequately\ninspect and test the pressure limiting device at the highly volatile liquids Alameda Pump Station\nto determine that it functioned at the proper pressure limit. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nKinder Morgan Cochin’s inspection records of the Alameda Pump Station indicated that the\npressure limiting device was set at 1200 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) on June 22, 2011,\nand 1300 psig on October 24, 2011, which are both above 110 percent of the 1000 psig\nmaximum operating pressure limit.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to adequately\ninspect and test the pressure limiting device at the highly volatile liquids Alameda Pump Station\nto determine that it functioned at the proper pressure limit.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428, which states:\n§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in\nthe case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to\nexceed 7 ½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each\npressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of\npressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in\ngood mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity\nand reliability of operation for the service in which it is used.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test\nthe highly volatile liquids Alameda Pump Station at intervals not to exceed 7 ½ months, but at\nleast twice each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Kinder Morgan Cochin did\nnot have any records of inspection conducted on the pressure limiting devices at the station\nbetween June 1, 2010, and June 22, 2011. An inspection should have occurred no later than\nDecember 31, 2010. Therefore the inspection interval was exceeded by five months and 22 days.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and\ntest the highly volatile liquids Alameda Pump Station at intervals not to exceed 7 ½ months, but\nat least twice each calendar year.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2015-5008\nPage 4\nrelated series of violations.2 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $51,400 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $15,100. Since this item was withdrawn, the\nproposed civil penalty for this item is not assessed.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $14,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.428(a), for failing to adequately inspect and test the pressure limiting device at the highly\nvolatile liquids Alameda Pump Station to determine that it functioned at the proper pressure\nlimit. Kinder Morgan Cochin neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or\nargument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $14,700 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a). A payment for this Item was received on April 26, 2016.\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $21,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.428(a), for failing to inspect and test the highly volatile liquids Alameda Pump Station at\nintervals not to exceed 7 ½ months, but at least twice each calendar year. Kinder Morgan Cochin\nneither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in\nthe proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $21,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a).\nA payment for this Item was received on April 26, 2016.\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $36,300, which has already been\npaid.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nDecember 29, 2016\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n2 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat.\n1904, January 3, 2012, increased the civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to $200,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.","truncated":false,"body_characters":22712}