SFPP, LP — Notice of Probable Violation

case documentOfficial PDF420125016_NOPV PCP_04252012.pdf#

case documentOfficial PDF420125016_NOPV PCP_04252012_text.pdf#

party submissionOfficial PDF420125016_Operator Response to Notice _06012012.pdf#

420125016_Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFAUGUST 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#

420125016_Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 2U.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).#

420125016_Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 32 § 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) . . .#

420125016_Final Order_08302012_text.pdf, page 43 (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#