{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420125021","title":"KINDER MORGAN CO2 CO. LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-05-29","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.571, 195.577(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125021.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125021.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420125021","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420125021","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving KINDER MORGAN CO2 CO. LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.571,  195.577(a). The case was opened on 2012-05-29 and is reported as closed as of 2013-12-02. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420125021_Closure_12022013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125021/420125021_Closure_12022013.pdf\n\n420125021_Closure_12022013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125021/420125021_Closure_12022013_text.pdf\n\n420125021_Final Order_10092012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125021/420125021_Final%20Order_10092012.pdf\n\n420125021_Final Order_10092012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125021/420125021_Final%20Order_10092012_text.pdf\n\n420125021_NOPV PCO_05292012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125021/420125021_NOPV%20PCO_05292012.pdf\n\n420125021_NOPV PCO_05292012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125021/420125021_NOPV%20PCO_05292012_text.pdf\n\n420125021_Operator Response to Notice_07062012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125021/420125021_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_07062012.pdf\n\n420125021_Closure_12022013_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nDecember 2, 2013\nMr. Charles Fox\nVice President of Operations\nKinder Morgan CO₂ Company, LP\n500 Dallas Street, Suite 1000\nHouston, Texas 77002\nCPF 4-2012-5021\nDear Mr. Fox:\nOn October 9, 2012, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Kinder Morgan CO₂ a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included a\nCompliance Order. Based on our review of the documentation you provided, it has been\ndetermined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n420125021_Final Order_10092012_text.pdf\n\nOCTOBER 9, 2012\nMr. Tim Bradley\nPresident\nKinder Morgan CO2 Company, LP\n500 Dallas Street, Suite 1000\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2012-5021\nDear Mr. Bradley:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LP, to\ncomply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been\ncompleted, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be\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. Rodrick Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nMr. Kenneth H. Havens, Jr., Vice President - Source and Transportation, Kinder Morgan\nCO2 Company, 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)\nKinder Morgan CO2 Company, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2012-5021\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn November 28 – December 2, 2011, and February 1, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a\nrepresentative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and\nrecords of Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LP (KMCO2 or Respondent), a subsidiary of Kinder\nMorgan Energy Partners, LP, in Cortez, Colorado. The inspection covered facilities and records\npertaining to Respondent’s Cortez CO2 pipeline, a 30-inch pipeline that transports carbon dioxide\nliquid 502 miles from McElmo Dome near Cortez, Colorado, to Denver City, Texas.\n1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated May 29, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that KMCO2 had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.571 and 195.577(a) and proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nKMCO2 responded to the Notice by letter dated July 6, 2012 (Response). The company did not\ncontest the compliance order, but stated it did “not agree with the allegations of the NOPV.”2\nRespondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, KMCO2 did not contest the proposed compliance order but disputed the\nallegations of violation of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571, which states:\n1 http://www kne.com/business/co2/transport_cortez.cfm (last accessed on September 24, 2012).\n2 Respondent’s Response to the Notice at 1.\n\n\n\n2\n§ 195.571 What criteria must I use to determine the adequacy of\ncathodic protection?\nCathodic protection required by this Subpart must comply with one or\nmore of the applicable criteria and other considerations for cathodic\nprotection contained in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of NACE SP 0169\n(incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nThe Notice alleged that KMCO2 violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571 by failing to ensure that all buried\npiping at its Blanco Station had adequate cathodic protection (CP), as provided by NACE SP\n0169 (version 2007). Specifically, the Notice alleged that during PHMSA’s inspection of the\nBlanco Station, KMCO2 personnel conducted an interrupted CP survey that showed insufficient\nCP on the station bypass piping. PHMSA staff subsequently learned that the station piping was\nelectrically isolated from the mainline with buried isolation unions and that during a 2008\nconstruction project the rectifier lead cable to the station piping had been cut. The Notice further\nalleged that when PHMSA staff observed the configuration of the electrical connections at a\nrectifier junction box, it was apparent that the station bypass piping was electrically\ndisconnected. PHMSA asserted that the bypass piping had inadequate CP and that the only\ncurrent making it to the station bypass piping was stray cathodic current.\nIn its Response, KMCO2 indicated that it had taken immediate action after the PHMSA\ninspection to restore CP to an acceptable level at the Blanco Station. Although KMCO2\ndisagreed with the allegations in the Notice, it did not contest, and expressed its intent to comply\nwith the proposed compliance order. KMCO2 further stated that it would inspect the station\nbypass piping for potential corrosion or damage caused by the low CP.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.571 by failing to ensure that all buried piping on its pipeline system had\nadequate cathodic protection, as provided by NACE SP 0169 (version 2007).\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.577(a), which states:\n§ 195.577 What must I do to alleviate interference currents?\n(a) For pipelines exposed to stray currents, you must have a program to\nidentify, test for, and minimize the detrimental effects of such currents.\nThe Notice alleged that KMCO2 violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.577(a) by failing, in two specific\ninstances, to adequately identify, test for, and minimize the detrimental effects of interference\ncurrents on its pipeline. First, the Notice alleged that KMCO2 failed to test for stray currents on\nthe pipeline segment between Poquita Station and Allred Station, along which parallel high-\nvoltage electrical transmission lines exposed the pipeline to stray alternating current (AC)\ninterference. Second, the Notice alleged that KMCO2 failed to identify, test for, and minimize\ndetrimental effects of stray AC currents after detecting high AC readings at 109 locations on the\nBlanco Station to Cortez Station segment.\nIn the first instance, the Notice alleged that during the inspection of Respondent’s Cortez system,\nPHMSA identified locations where stray currents could cause detrimental effects on the pipeline.\n\n\n\n3\nUpon request, KMCO2 produced segment surveys of the entire Cortez CO2 pipeline system,\nincluding tests for AC interference. PHMSA staff noted that KMCO2 could not produce any AC\nreads taken for the pipeline segment between Poquita Station and Allred Station. During the\ninspection, KMCO2 staff confirmed that high-voltage electrical transmission lines ran parallel to\nthe right-of-way in this segment and that AC reads had not been taken during the last Close\nInterval Survey (CIS) performed on this segment in 2007 because, according to Respondent, the\ncompany’s CP technicians did not have the correct software to allow them to record AC\nreadings.\n3\nIn its Response, KMCO2 contested this allegation, stating that in 2007, no high-voltage electrical\ntransmission lines existed along this section and therefore no AC reads were required. I\ndisagree. Regardless of when the high-voltage electrical transmission lines became operational,\nthey were present and active at the time of the 2011 inspection. KMCO2 was unable to show\nPHMSA inspectors that it had a program in place at the time of the inspection to identify, test for,\nand minimize the detrimental effects of AC current in this area. As soon as the transmission\nlines were installed, KMCO2 needed to institute a program to identify and alleviate interference\ncurrents, since the detrimental effects of stray currents can damage a pipeline quickly and\nthreaten public safety.\nIn the second instance, PHMSA staff reviewed the May-June 2009 CIS of the Cortez pipeline\nsegment between Blanco Station and Cortez Station. Electronic spreadsheets containing the AC\nreads from the survey showed 109 instances where the voltage level exceeded 15V AC-RMS and\nwhere Respondent should have identified, tested for, and minimized detrimental effects of stray\nAC currents. During the inspection, KMCO2 staff stated that they had disregarded the high reads\nbecause they were likely due to rocks or high-resistivity soils, but could not provide PHMSA\nstaff with a sound engineering basis for this conclusion.4\nIn its Response, KMCO2 reasserted that it had a sound basis for disregarding the high-voltage\nreads and claimed that its conclusion was based on the overall pattern of the AC reads.5\nHowever, the company was unable to produce any testing data, engineering analysis, or other\ndocumentation to substantiate this claim. Further, by failing to undertake any sort of rigorous\nanalysis, KMCO2 failed to follow its own procedures, which required the exercise of “sound\nengineering judgment” when considering potential deficiencies in field data.6 Without taking the\nadditional step of verifying the cause of the high AC reads on the underground pipe sections,\nKMCO2 failed to adequately identify, test for, and minimize the detrimental effects of potentially\ndamaging stray currents.\n3 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (May 29, 2012) (on file with PHMSA) at 12.\n4 Violation Report at 20.\n5 The 2009 CIS of the Cortez Station to Blanco Station segment did not show any AC readings above 5V AC-RMS\nat any test station or above-ground appurtenances. Due to the frequency and consistency of these above-ground\nreadings, KMCO2 argued that it was justified in dismissing the higher underground voltage readings as caused\nmerely by rocks and high-resistivity soils. Response at 3.\n6 KMCO2 Procedure L-O&M 903, section 3.7.5.2. Violation Report, Exhibit F at 14.\n\n\n\n4\nIn its Response, KMCO2 disagreed with the allegations in the Notice, but did not contest, and\nexpressed its intent to comply with, the proposed compliance order. Accordingly, based upon a\nreview of all the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.577(a) by failing to\nadequately identify, test for, and minimize the detrimental effects on interference currents in the\ntwo instances described above.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.517 and 195.577(a), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a),\neach person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a\npipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under\nchapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217,\nRespondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety\nregulations applicable to its operations:\n1. 2. 3. 4. With respect to the violation of § 195.571 (Item 1), Respondent must perform a review\nand assessment to identify any impact the lack of CP protection has had on its piping.\nKMCO2 must remediate any deficiencies found.\nWith respect to the violation of § 195.577(a) (Item 2), Respondent must:\na. Perform a survey to test for an evaluate AC interference currents that may be induced\non the Poquita Station to Allred Station pipeline segment, and address/remediate any\nareas of high AC inductance as referred to in KMCO2 IM Protocol 14.\nb. Survey the Blanco Station to Cortez Station line segment in accordance with KMCO2\nIM Protocol 14 and properly address any results requiring mitigation.\nc. Develop a plan to survey the remaining portions of the Cortez system in accordance\nwith KMCO2 IM Protocol 14.\nKMCO2 must submit to the Region Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Administration, 8701 South Gessner Drive, Suite 1110, Houston, Texas 77074:\na. Results of surveys and plans, with time tables, within 30 days following receipt of the\nFinal Order.\nb. Confirmation of completion of all items within 365 days following the receipt of the\nFinal Order.\nKMCO2 is requested (not mandated) to maintain documentation of the safety\n\n\n\n5\nimprovement and compliance costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and\nsubmit the total to Rodrick Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories:\n(1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies, and\nanalyses; and (2) total cost associated with replacements, additions, and other physical\nchanges to the pipeline infrastructure.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay, the 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":16270}