# SFPP, LP — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

420125016_Final Order_08302012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125016/420125016_Final%20Order_08302012.pdf

420125016_Final Order_08302012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125016/420125016_Final%20Order_08302012_text.pdf

420125016_NOPV PCP_04252012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125016/420125016_NOPV%20PCP_04252012.pdf

420125016_NOPV PCP_04252012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125016/420125016_NOPV%20PCP_04252012_text.pdf

420125016_Operator Response to Notice _06012012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125016/420125016_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20_06012012.pdf

420125016_Final Order_08302012_text.pdf

AUGUST 30, 2012
Mr. Richard D. Kinder
Chairman and CEO
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP
500 Dallas St., Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF No. 4-2012-5016
Dear Mr. Kinder:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation and assesses a civil penalty of $103,300. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of
the full penalty amount, by wire transfer, dated June 1, 2012. 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,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. R.M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS
Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS
Mr. Ron G. McClain, Vice President Engineering and Operations, Products Pipelines,
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP
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 )
)
SFPP, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2012-5016
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On multiple visits between June 7 and October 20, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117,
representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office
of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted on-site pipeline safety inspections of the records of SFPP,
LP (SFPP or Respondent), in Orange, California; Bloomington, California; and El Paso, Texas,
and of pipeline facilities along the right-of-way (ROW) from El Paso to the New Mexico and
Arizona state borders. SFPP is a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP, which
transports crude oil, refined petroleum products, and highly volatile liquids through more than
8,000 miles of pipelines in the United States.
1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated April 25, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil
Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that
SFPP had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil
penalty of $103,300 for the alleged violations.
SFPP responded to the Notice by letter dated June 1, 2012 (Response). The company did not
contest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $103,300, as provided
in 49 C.F.R. § 190.209(a). Payment of the penalty serves to close the case with prejudice to
Respondent.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, SFPP did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part
195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), which states:
1 See http://www.kindermorgan.com/business/products_pipelines/ (last accessed August 29, 2012).



2
§ 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.
(a) . . .
(b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service
atmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according
to API Standard 653 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). However, if
structural conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, the bottom
integrity may be assessed according to a plan included in the operations
and maintenance manual under § 195.402(c)(3).
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to inspect the
physical integrity of certain in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout
tanks according to API Standard 653. Specifically, the Notice alleged that during 2010 and
2011, SFPP missed one monthly inspection for four breakout tanks, four monthly inspections for
one breakout tank, and 11 monthly inspections for one relief tank, all at its El Paso Station.
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. § 195.432(b) by failing to inspect the
physical integrity of certain in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout
tanks according to API Standard 653.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.569, which states:
§ 195.569 Do I have to examine exposed portions of buried pipelines?
Whenever you have knowledge that any portion of a buried pipeline is
exposed, you must examine the exposed portion for evidence of external
corrosion if the pipe is bare, or if the coating is deteriorated. If you find
external corrosion requiring corrective action under §195.585, you must
investigate circumferentially and longitudinally beyond the exposed
portion (by visual examination, indirect method, or both) to determine
whether additional corrosion requiring remedial action exists in the
vicinity of the exposed portion.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.569 by failing to examine the
exposed portion of buried pipelines for external corrosion. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
SFPP failed to examine exposed portions of buried pipelines for external corrosion at seven
locations.
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. § 195.569 by failing to examine the
exposed portion of buried pipelines for external corrosion at seven locations.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(c), which states:
§ 195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?
(a) . . .



3
(c) Removing pipe. Whenever you remove pipe from a pipeline,
you must inspect the internal surface of the pipe for evidence of
corrosion. If you find internal corrosion requiring corrective action
under § 195.585, you must investigate circumferentially and
longitudinally beyond the removed pipe (by visual examination,
indirect method, or both) to determine whether additional corrosion
requiring remedial action exists in the vicinity of the removed pipe.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(c) by failing to inspect the
internal surface of pipe that had been removed from a pipeline for evidence of corrosion.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that SFPP failed to inspect the internal surface of pipe that had
been removed from the pipeline for evidence of corrosion on eight occasions.
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. § 195.579(c) by failing to inspect the
internal surface of pipe that had been removed from a pipeline for evidence of corrosion.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
___________________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 8368