# KINDER MORGAN CO2 CO. LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

420125021_Closure_12022013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125021/420125021_Closure_12022013.pdf

420125021_Closure_12022013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125021/420125021_Closure_12022013_text.pdf

420125021_Final Order_10092012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125021/420125021_Final%20Order_10092012.pdf

420125021_Final Order_10092012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125021/420125021_Final%20Order_10092012_text.pdf

420125021_NOPV PCO_05292012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125021/420125021_NOPV%20PCO_05292012.pdf

420125021_NOPV PCO_05292012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125021/420125021_NOPV%20PCO_05292012_text.pdf

420125021_Operator Response to Notice_07062012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420125021/420125021_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_07062012.pdf

420125021_Closure_12022013_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
December 2, 2013
Mr. Charles Fox
Vice President of Operations
Kinder Morgan CO₂ Company, LP
500 Dallas Street, Suite 1000
Houston, Texas 77002
CPF 4-2012-5021
Dear Mr. Fox:
On October 9, 2012, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to Kinder Morgan CO₂ a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included a
Compliance Order. Based on our review of the documentation you provided, it has been
determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
R. M. Seeley
Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

420125021_Final Order_10092012_text.pdf

OCTOBER 9, 2012
Mr. Tim Bradley
President
Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LP
500 Dallas Street, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF No. 4-2012-5021
Dear Mr. Bradley:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LP, to
comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been
completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be
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. Rodrick Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS
Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS
Mr. Kenneth H. Havens, Jr., Vice President - Source and Transportation, Kinder Morgan
CO2 Company, 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 )
)
Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2012-5021
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On November 28 – December 2, 2011, and February 1, 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 CO2 Company, LP (KMCO2 or Respondent), a subsidiary of Kinder
Morgan Energy Partners, LP, in Cortez, Colorado. The inspection covered facilities and records
pertaining to Respondent’s Cortez CO2 pipeline, a 30-inch pipeline that transports carbon dioxide
liquid 502 miles from McElmo Dome near Cortez, Colorado, to Denver City, Texas.
1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated May 29, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed
Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed
finding that KMCO2 had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.571 and 195.577(a) and proposed ordering
Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
KMCO2 responded to the Notice by letter dated July 6, 2012 (Response). The company did not
contest the compliance order, but stated it did “not agree with the allegations of the NOPV.”2
Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, KMCO2 did not contest the proposed compliance order but disputed the
allegations of violation of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571, which states:
1 http://www kne.com/business/co2/transport_cortez.cfm (last accessed on September 24, 2012).
2 Respondent’s Response to the Notice at 1.



2
§ 195.571 What criteria must I use to determine the adequacy of
cathodic protection?
Cathodic protection required by this Subpart must comply with one or
more of the applicable criteria and other considerations for cathodic
protection contained in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of NACE SP 0169
(incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).
The Notice alleged that KMCO2 violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571 by failing to ensure that all buried
piping at its Blanco Station had adequate cathodic protection (CP), as provided by NACE SP
0169 (version 2007). Specifically, the Notice alleged that during PHMSA’s inspection of the
Blanco Station, KMCO2 personnel conducted an interrupted CP survey that showed insufficient
CP on the station bypass piping. PHMSA staff subsequently learned that the station piping was
electrically isolated from the mainline with buried isolation unions and that during a 2008
construction project the rectifier lead cable to the station piping had been cut. The Notice further
alleged that when PHMSA staff observed the configuration of the electrical connections at a
rectifier junction box, it was apparent that the station bypass piping was electrically
disconnected. PHMSA asserted that the bypass piping had inadequate CP and that the only
current making it to the station bypass piping was stray cathodic current.
In its Response, KMCO2 indicated that it had taken immediate action after the PHMSA
inspection to restore CP to an acceptable level at the Blanco Station. Although KMCO2
disagreed with the allegations in the Notice, it did not contest, and expressed its intent to comply
with the proposed compliance order. KMCO2 further stated that it would inspect the station
bypass piping for potential corrosion or damage caused by the low CP.
Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent violated
49 C.F.R. § 195.571 by failing to ensure that all buried piping on its pipeline system had
adequate cathodic protection, as provided by NACE SP 0169 (version 2007).
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.577(a), which states:
§ 195.577 What must I do to alleviate interference currents?
(a) For pipelines exposed to stray currents, you must have a program to
identify, test for, and minimize the detrimental effects of such currents.
The Notice alleged that KMCO2 violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.577(a) by failing, in two specific
instances, to adequately identify, test for, and minimize the detrimental effects of interference
currents on its pipeline. First, the Notice alleged that KMCO2 failed to test for stray currents on
the pipeline segment between Poquita Station and Allred Station, along which parallel high-
voltage electrical transmission lines exposed the pipeline to stray alternating current (AC)
interference. Second, the Notice alleged that KMCO2 failed to identify, test for, and minimize
detrimental effects of stray AC currents after detecting high AC readings at 109 locations on the
Blanco Station to Cortez Station segment.
In the first instance, the Notice alleged that during the inspection of Respondent’s Cortez system,
PHMSA identified locations where stray currents could cause detrimental effects on the pipeline.



3
Upon request, KMCO2 produced segment surveys of the entire Cortez CO2 pipeline system,
including tests for AC interference. PHMSA staff noted that KMCO2 could not produce any AC
reads taken for the pipeline segment between Poquita Station and Allred Station. During the
inspection, KMCO2 staff confirmed that high-voltage electrical transmission lines ran parallel to
the right-of-way in this segment and that AC reads had not been taken during the last Close
Interval Survey (CIS) performed on this segment in 2007 because, according to Respondent, the
company’s CP technicians did not have the correct software to allow them to record AC
readings.
3
In its Response, KMCO2 contested this allegation, stating that in 2007, no high-voltage electrical
transmission lines existed along this section and therefore no AC reads were required. I
disagree. Regardless of when the high-voltage electrical transmission lines became operational,
they were present and active at the time of the 2011 inspection. KMCO2 was unable to show
PHMSA inspectors that it had a program in place at the time of the inspection to identify, test for,
and minimize the detrimental effects of AC current in this area. As soon as the transmission
lines were installed, KMCO2 needed to institute a program to identify and alleviate interference
currents, since the detrimental effects of stray currents can damage a pipeline quickly and
threaten public safety.
In the second instance, PHMSA staff reviewed the May-June 2009 CIS of the Cortez pipeline
segment between Blanco Station and Cortez Station. Electronic spreadsheets containing the AC
reads from the survey showed 109 instances where the voltage level exceeded 15V AC-RMS and
where Respondent should have identified, tested for, and minimized detrimental effects of stray
AC currents. During the inspection, KMCO2 staff stated that they had disregarded the high reads
because they were likely due to rocks or high-resistivity soils, but could not provide PHMSA
staff with a sound engineering basis for this conclusion.4
In its Response, KMCO2 reasserted that it had a sound basis for disregarding the high-voltage
reads and claimed that its conclusion was based on the overall pattern of the AC reads.5
However, the company was unable to produce any testing data, engineering analysis, or other
documentation to substantiate this claim. Further, by failing to undertake any sort of rigorous
analysis, KMCO2 failed to follow its own procedures, which required the exercise of “sound
engineering judgment” when considering potential deficiencies in field data.6 Without taking the
additional step of verifying the cause of the high AC reads on the underground pipe sections,
KMCO2 failed to adequately identify, test for, and minimize the detrimental effects of potentially
damaging stray currents.
3 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (May 29, 2012) (on file with PHMSA) at 12.
4 Violation Report at 20.
5 The 2009 CIS of the Cortez Station to Blanco Station segment did not show any AC readings above 5V AC-RMS
at any test station or above-ground appurtenances. Due to the frequency and consistency of these above-ground
readings, KMCO2 argued that it was justified in dismissing the higher underground voltage readings as caused
merely by rocks and high-resistivity soils. Response at 3.
6 KMCO2 Procedure L-O&M 903, section 3.7.5.2. Violation Report, Exhibit F at 14.



4
In its Response, KMCO2 disagreed with the allegations in the Notice, but did not contest, and
expressed its intent to comply with, the proposed compliance order. Accordingly, based upon a
review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.577(a) by failing to
adequately identify, test for, and minimize the detrimental effects on interference currents in the
two instances described above.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.517 and 195.577(a), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a),
each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a
pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under
chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217,
Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety
regulations applicable to its operations:
1. 2. 3. 4. With respect to the violation of § 195.571 (Item 1), Respondent must perform a review
and assessment to identify any impact the lack of CP protection has had on its piping.
KMCO2 must remediate any deficiencies found.
With respect to the violation of § 195.577(a) (Item 2), Respondent must:
a. Perform a survey to test for an evaluate AC interference currents that may be induced
on the Poquita Station to Allred Station pipeline segment, and address/remediate any
areas of high AC inductance as referred to in KMCO2 IM Protocol 14.
b. Survey the Blanco Station to Cortez Station line segment in accordance with KMCO2
IM Protocol 14 and properly address any results requiring mitigation.
c. Develop a plan to survey the remaining portions of the Cortez system in accordance
with KMCO2 IM Protocol 14.
KMCO2 must submit to the Region Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Administration, 8701 South Gessner Drive, Suite 1110, Houston, Texas 77074:
a. Results of surveys and plans, with time tables, within 30 days following receipt of the
Final Order.
b. Confirmation of completion of all items within 365 days following the receipt of the
Final Order.
KMCO2 is requested (not mandated) to maintain documentation of the safety



5
improvement and compliance costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and
submit the total to Rodrick Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials 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 physical
changes to the pipeline infrastructure.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the
Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of
this Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline
Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC
20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA
will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by
the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other
requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a
stay, 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:** 16270