{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420125016","title":"SFPP, LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-04-25","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.432(b), 195.569, 195.579(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125016.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125016.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125016","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420125016","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SFPP, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.432(b),  195.569,  195.579(c). The case was opened on 2012-04-25 and is reported as closed as of 2012-08-30. Proposed civil penalty: $103,300. Assessed civil penalty: $103,300. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420125016_Final Order_08302012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125016/420125016_Final%20Order_08302012.pdf\n\n420125016_Final Order_08302012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125016/420125016_Final%20Order_08302012_text.pdf\n\n420125016_NOPV PCP_04252012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125016/420125016_NOPV%20PCP_04252012.pdf\n\n420125016_NOPV PCP_04252012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125016/420125016_NOPV%20PCP_04252012_text.pdf\n\n420125016_Operator Response to Notice _06012012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125016/420125016_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20_06012012.pdf\n\n420125016_Final Order_08302012_text.pdf\n\nAUGUST 30, 2012\nMr. Richard D. Kinder\nChairman and CEO\nKinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP\n500 Dallas St., Suite 1000\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2012-5016\nDear Mr. Kinder:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $103,300. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of\nthe full penalty amount, by wire transfer, dated June 1, 2012. 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,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. R.M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nMr. Ron G. McClain, Vice President Engineering and Operations, Products Pipelines,\nKinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP\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)\nSFPP, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2012-5016\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn multiple visits between June 7 and October 20, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117,\nrepresentatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted on-site pipeline safety inspections of the records of SFPP,\nLP (SFPP or Respondent), in Orange, California; Bloomington, California; and El Paso, Texas,\nand of pipeline facilities along the right-of-way (ROW) from El Paso to the New Mexico and\nArizona state borders. SFPP is a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP, which\ntransports crude oil, refined petroleum products, and highly volatile liquids through more than\n8,000 miles of pipelines in the United States.\n1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated April 25, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil\nPenalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nSFPP had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $103,300 for the alleged violations.\nSFPP responded to the Notice by letter dated June 1, 2012 (Response). The company did not\ncontest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $103,300, as provided\nin 49 C.F.R. § 190.209(a). Payment of the penalty serves to close the case with prejudice to\nRespondent.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, SFPP did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part\n195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), which states:\n1 See http://www.kindermorgan.com/business/products_pipelines/ (last accessed August 29, 2012).\n\n\n\n2\n§ 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n(a) . . .\n(b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service\natmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according\nto API Standard 653 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). However, if\nstructural conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, the bottom\nintegrity may be assessed according to a plan included in the operations\nand maintenance manual under § 195.402(c)(3).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to inspect the\nphysical integrity of certain in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout\ntanks according to API Standard 653. Specifically, the Notice alleged that during 2010 and\n2011, SFPP missed one monthly inspection for four breakout tanks, four monthly inspections for\none breakout tank, and 11 monthly inspections for one relief tank, all at its El Paso Station.\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. § 195.432(b) by failing to inspect the\nphysical integrity of certain in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout\ntanks according to API Standard 653.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.569, which states:\n§ 195.569 Do I have to examine exposed portions of buried pipelines?\nWhenever you have knowledge that any portion of a buried pipeline is\nexposed, you must examine the exposed portion for evidence of external\ncorrosion if the pipe is bare, or if the coating is deteriorated. If you find\nexternal corrosion requiring corrective action under §195.585, you must\ninvestigate circumferentially and longitudinally beyond the exposed\nportion (by visual examination, indirect method, or both) to determine\nwhether additional corrosion requiring remedial action exists in the\nvicinity of the exposed portion.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.569 by failing to examine the\nexposed portion of buried pipelines for external corrosion. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nSFPP failed to examine exposed portions of buried pipelines for external corrosion at seven\nlocations.\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. § 195.569 by failing to examine the\nexposed portion of buried pipelines for external corrosion at seven locations.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(c), which states:\n§ 195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?\n(a) . . .\n\n\n\n3\n(c) Removing pipe. Whenever you remove pipe from a pipeline,\nyou must inspect the internal surface of the pipe for evidence of\ncorrosion. If you find internal corrosion requiring corrective action\nunder § 195.585, you must investigate circumferentially and\nlongitudinally beyond the removed pipe (by visual examination,\nindirect method, or both) to determine whether additional corrosion\nrequiring remedial action exists in the vicinity of the removed pipe.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(c) by failing to inspect the\ninternal surface of pipe that had been removed from a pipeline for evidence of corrosion.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that SFPP failed to inspect the internal surface of pipe that had\nbeen removed from the pipeline for evidence of corrosion on eight occasions.\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. § 195.579(c) by failing to inspect the\ninternal surface of pipe that had been removed from a pipeline for evidence of corrosion.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":8368}