# PEMBINA COCHIN LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

320155008_Final Order_12292016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320155008/320155008_Final%20Order_12292016.pdf

320155008_Final Order_12292016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320155008/320155008_Final%20Order_12292016_text.pdf

320155008_NOPV PCP PCO_10302015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320155008/320155008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_10302015.pdf

320155008_NOPV PCP PCO_10302015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320155008/320155008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_10302015_text.pdf

320155008_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

320155008_NOPV PCP PCO_10302015_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
October 30, 2015
Mr. Ron McClain
Vice President – Engineering and Operations
Kinder Morgan Cochin, LLC
500 Dallas Street, Suite 1000
Houston, Texas 77002
CPF 3-2015-5008
Dear Mr. McClain:
On June 11-15, 2012, and July 23-27, 2012, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to
Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected your Cochin hazardous liquid pipeline in
the areas of Charles City, Iowa, and Jamestown, North Dakota.
As a result of the inspection, it appears that Kinder Morgan Cochin, LLC (KM) has
committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violation(s) are:



1. 2. §195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at
intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in
the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to
exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each
pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of
pressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in
good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity
and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used.
KM failed to inspect and test each highly volatile liquids pump station pressure
limiting device to determine that it was functioning properly, in good mechanical
condition, and adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability.
KM uses an electrical communication loop for operation of the overpressure
protection system at its pump stations. This communication loop is from the
pressure sensing line, to the transmitter, to the programmable logic controller, to the
variable frequency drive or variable speed drive, and to the pump. In this scenario
the “pressure limiting device” is the entire communication loop, since all of these
devices must be functioning properly for pressure control. Therefore, the entire loop
must be inspected to meet the requirement of §195.428. KM only inspected the
transmitters and failed to inspect any other portion of the communication loop for
four (4) inspection cycles from October 2010 to April 2012 at the Masonville Pump
Station in Iowa.
§195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at
intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in
the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to
exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each
pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of
pressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in
good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity
and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used.
KM failed to adequately inspect and test the pressure limiting device at the highly
volatile liquids Alameda Pump Station for function at the proper pressure limit.
Inspection records of the Alameda Pump Station indicate that the pressure limiting
device was set at 1200 psig on June 22, 2011, and 1300 psig on October 24, 2011,
which are both above 110% of the 1000 psig maximum operating pressure limit.
2



3. §195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at
intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or
in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not
to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test
each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item
of pressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly,
is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of
capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used.
KM did not inspect and test the highly volatile liquids Alameda Pump Station at
intervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year. KM did
not have any records of inspection conducted on the pressure limiting devices at the
station between June 1, 2010, and June 22, 2011. An inspection should have
occurred no later than December 31, 2010. Therefore the inspection interval was
exceeded by five (5) months and 22 days.
(Note: The Alameda Pump Station in Canada provides overpressure protection for
PHMSA’s regulated segment from Milepost 621 at the Canadian/US border to
Milepost 652 at Maxbass Pump Station, North Dakota.)
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a
related series of violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum
penalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to
exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed
the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violations
and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $51,400 as
follows:
Item number PENALTY
1 $15,100
2 $14,700
3 $21,600
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to item 1 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, The Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Kinder
Morgan Cochin, LLC. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed
and made a part of this Notice.
3



Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline
Operators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response
options. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made
publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for
confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document
you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for
confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted
information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not
respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to
contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for
Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to
issue a Final Order.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2015-5008 and for each
document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Allan C. Beshore
Director, Central Region, OPS
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
4



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Kinder Morgan Cochin, LLC a Compliance
Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of
Kinder Morgan Cochin, LLC with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. In regard to Item 1 of the Notice pertaining to inspecting and testing its
pressure limiting devices, Kinder Morgan shall amend it practices and
procedures to include the entire electrical communication loop which
controls its overpressure protection devices. Kinder Morgan shall submit the
amended procedure manual within 90 days of the Final Order. KM shall
then conduct an inspection of its overpressure protection devices in
accordance with its amended procedure within 180 days of the Final Order.
2. It is requested (not mandated) that Kinder Morgan Cochin, LLC maintain
documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this
Compliance Order and submit the total to Allan C. Beshore, Director,
Central Region, OPS, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories:
1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures,
studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements,
additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
5

320155008_Final Order_12292016_text.pdf

December 29, 2016
Mr. Steven J. Kean
President and Chief Executive Officer
Kinder Morgan Inc.
1001 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002-5089
Re: CPF No. 3-2015-5008
Dear Mr. Kean:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violations and assesses a civil penalty of $36,300. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of
the full penalty amount, by wire transfer, dated April 26, 2016. This enforcement action is now
closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing,
or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region, OPS
Mr. Wayne G. Simmons, VP – Engineering and Operations, Kinder Morgan Cochin,
LLC, 500 Dallas Street, Suite 1000, Houston , Texas 77002
(email) Mr. Vince Murchison, Esquire
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
Kinder Morgan Cochin, LLC ) CPF No. 3-2015-5008
a Kinder Morgan Company )
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On July 23-27, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Kinder Morgan
Cochin, LLC (Kinder Morgan Cochin or Respondent) in the areas of Charles City, Iowa, and
Jamestown, North Dakota. Kinder Morgan Cochin operates 1,239 miles of highly volatile liquid
from North Dakota, through Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio.
1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated October 30, 2015, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and
Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice
proposed finding that Kinder Morgan Cochin had committed multiple violations of 49 C.F.R. §
195.428 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $51,400 for the alleged violations. The Notice
also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated January 4, 2016 (Response). With respect to
Item 1 of the Notice only, Kinder Morgan Cochin contested the alleged violation, presented
information seeking mitigation of the proposed penalty, and requested a hearing. The company
did not contest the allegations of violation and associated civil penalty for Items 2 and 3 of the
Notice. By letter dated March 17, 2016, the Director informed Respondent that Item 1 of the
Notice and its associated Proposed Civil Penalty and Proposed Compliance Order would be
withdrawn. By letter dated April 26, 2016 (Supplemental Response), Respondent withdrew its
request for a hearing and thereby waived its right to one and authorized the entry of this Final
Order without further notice. Further, Respondent paid the full penalty amount for Items 2 and 3
by wire transfer dated April 26, 2016.
1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Oct. 30, 2015) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.



CPF No. 3-2015-5008
Page 2
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:
§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at
intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in
the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to
exceed 7 ½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each
pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of
pressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in
good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity
and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test
each highly volatile liquids pump station pressure limiting device to determine that it was
functioning properly, in good mechanical condition, and adequate from the standpoint of
capacity and reliability. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Kinder Morgan Cochin’s uses an
electrical communication loop for operation of the overpressure protection system at its pump
stations. This communication loop is from the pressure sensing line, to the transmitter, to the
programmable logic controller, to the variable frequency drive or variable speed drive, and to the
pump. In this scenario the "pressure limiting device" is the entire communication loop, since all
of these devices must be functioning properly for pressure control. The Notice alleged that the
entire loop must be inspected to meet the requirement of §195.428 but that Kinder Morgan
Cochin only inspected the transmitters and did not inspect any other portion of the
communication loop for four (4) inspection cycles from October 2010 to April 2012 at the
Masonville Pump Station in Iowa.
Respondent contested the alleged violation, presented information seeking mitigation of the
proposed penalty, and requested a hearing. As a result, by letter dated March 17, 2016, the
Director informed Respondent that Item 1 of the Notice and its associated Proposed Civil Penalty
and Proposed Compliance Order would be withdrawn. Accordingly, this alleged violation is
withdrawn.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:
§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at
intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in
the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to
exceed 7 ½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each
pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of
pressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in
good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity
and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used.



CPF No. 3-2015-5008
Page 3
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to adequately
inspect and test the pressure limiting device at the highly volatile liquids Alameda Pump Station
to determine that it functioned at the proper pressure limit. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
Kinder Morgan Cochin’s inspection records of the Alameda Pump Station indicated that the
pressure limiting device was set at 1200 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) on June 22, 2011,
and 1300 psig on October 24, 2011, which are both above 110 percent of the 1000 psig
maximum operating pressure limit.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to adequately
inspect and test the pressure limiting device at the highly volatile liquids Alameda Pump Station
to determine that it functioned at the proper pressure limit.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428, which states:
§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at
intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in
the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to
exceed 7 ½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each
pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of
pressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in
good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity
and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test
the highly volatile liquids Alameda Pump Station at intervals not to exceed 7 ½ months, but at
least twice each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Kinder Morgan Cochin did
not have any records of inspection conducted on the pressure limiting devices at the station
between June 1, 2010, and June 22, 2011. An inspection should have occurred no later than
December 31, 2010. Therefore the inspection interval was exceeded by five months and 22 days.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and
test the highly volatile liquids Alameda Pump Station at intervals not to exceed 7 ½ months, but
at least twice each calendar year.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any



CPF No. 3-2015-5008
Page 4
related series of violations.2 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect
that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of
Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may
consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of
subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total
civil penalty of $51,400 for the violations cited above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $15,100. Since this item was withdrawn, the
proposed civil penalty for this item is not assessed.
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $14,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.428(a), for failing to adequately inspect and test the pressure limiting device at the highly
volatile liquids Alameda Pump Station to determine that it functioned at the proper pressure
limit. Kinder Morgan Cochin neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or
argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the
record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $14,700 for
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a). A payment for this Item was received on April 26, 2016.
Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $21,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.428(a), for failing to inspect and test the highly volatile liquids Alameda Pump Station at
intervals not to exceed 7 ½ months, but at least twice each calendar year. Kinder Morgan Cochin
neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in
the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment
criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $21,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a).
A payment for this Item was received on April 26, 2016.
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $36,300, which has already been
paid.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
December 29, 2016
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
2 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat.
1904, January 3, 2012, increased the civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to $200,000 per
violation 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