# CYPRESS INTERSTATE PIPELINE LLC — Warning Letter

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 420155001W
- **title:** CYPRESS INTERSTATE PIPELINE LLC — Warning Letter
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2015-02-09
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED warning letter citing 195.402(a), 195.402(d)(5), 195.402(e)(9), 195.446(h)(1), 195.507.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420155001w.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420155001w.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420155001w
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420155001W
**body:**

Warning Letter involving CYPRESS INTERSTATE PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.402(d)(5),  195.402(e)(9),  195.446(h)(1),  195.507. The case was opened on 2015-02-09 and is reported as closed as of 2015-02-09. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

420155001W_Warning letter_02092015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155001W/420155001W_Warning%20letter_02092015.pdf

420155001W_Warning letter_02092015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420155001W/420155001W_Warning%20letter_02092015_text.pdf

420155001W_Warning letter_02092015_text.pdf

WARNING LETTER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
February 9, 2015
Mr. Wayne Simmons
Vice President- Operations
Cypress Interstate Pipeline, LLC
1001 Louisiana St, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77002
CPF 4-2015-5001W
Dear Mr. Simmons:
On multiple occasions between July 2014 and September 12, 2014, a representative of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code were onsite and inspected your
Cypress Pipeline System (“Cypress”) in Texas and Louisiana operating areas. In addition to
that, PHMSA also inspected your Cypress Pipeline System (“Cypress”) Control Room facility in
Houston, TX.
As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the
probable violations are:
1. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual of
written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and
handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at



intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate
changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be
prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and appropriate parts
shall be kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted.
(d) Abnormal operation. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must
include procedures for the following to provide safety when operating design limits have
been exceeded;
(5) Periodically reviewing the response of operator personnel to determine the
effectiveness of the procedures controlling abnormal operation and taking corrective action
where deficiencies are found.
Cypress failed to follow their O&M Procedure, L-O&M 1101 (Response to Notice of Emergency
or Abnormal Operations) to determine the effectiveness of the procedures controlling abnormal
operation and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found.
During the inspection, PHMSA identified an instance where abnormal operating condition took
place.
a) MOC ID# 14-68, reference # 1593, dated 4/18/2014
Loss of communication at Mont Belvieu Pump Station. This MOC allowed Houston
Control Center (HCC) to operate the pipeline in manual mode until the communication
was re-established.
Kinder Morgan O&M Procedure, L-O&M 1101(Response to Notice of Emergency or Abnormal
Operations), Section 3.9(Procedure Effectiveness) states:-
“Management (e.g., Control Center/ Field) will review the responses of operating
personnel to abnormal operations and emergencies to determine the effectiveness of the
procedures”.
Kinder Morgan O&M Procedure, L-O&M 1101(Response to Notice of Emergency or Abnormal
Operations), Section-5(Documentation) states-
• “Minutes of the management Review Committee meeting shall specify that abnormal
operations and emergencies and abnormal operating conditions were reviewed to
determine the effectiveness of the procedures, and shall be filed locally.”
During the inspection, PHMSA requested Cypress’ effectiveness review of their procedure based
on the aforementioned specified instance. Cypress provided a personnel roster (Review History
for MOC ID# 14-68). PHMSA notes that the personnel roster is not considered as a “Minutes of
the Management Review Committee” as required by Kinder Morgan Procedure, L-O&M 1101.



2. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual of
written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and
handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at
intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate
changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be
prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and appropriate parts
shall be kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted.
(e) Emergencies. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include
procedures for the following to provide safety when an emergency condition occurs;
(9) Providing for a post-accident review of employee activities to determine whether the
procedures were effective in each emergency and taking corrective action where
deficiencies are found.
Cypress failed to provide for a post-accident review of employee activities to determine whether
the procedures were effective in each emergency and taking corrective action where deficiencies
are found.
During the inspection, PHMSA identified one instance where an incident took place.
a) Incident # 20130117-17711, dated 03/27/2013
Product released due to internal erosion that occurred on the tapered exit end of the separator
at Spindletop Pump Station, Segment ID# PL-115, TX.
Kinder Morgan O&M Procedure, L-O&M 1101(Response to Notice of Emergency or Abnormal
Operations), Section 3.9(Procedure Effectiveness) states:-
“Management (e.g., Control Center/ Field) will review the responses of operating
personnel to abnormal operations and emergencies to determine the effectiveness of the
procedures”.
Kinder Morgan O&M Procedure, L-O&M 1101(Response to Notice of Emergency or Abnormal
Operations), Section-5(Documentation) states-
• “Minutes of the management Review Committee meeting shall specify that abnormal
operations and emergencies and abnormal operating conditions were reviewed to
determine the effectiveness of the procedures, and shall be filed locally.”



Kinder Morgan O&M Procedure, L-O&M 159 (Incident Reporting and Investigation) states;
Failure Investigation:
6. Review written procedures, job instructions and specifications covering the
operation being performed at the time of the incident
7. Review the attitudes, priorities, stress levels, fatigue physical condition and
perceptions of the involved employee.
During the inspection, PHMSA requested Cypress’ effectiveness review of their procedure based
on the aforementioned specified instance. Cypress provided an agenda as a training meeting that
was held on August 2013 for the specified incident. PHMSA notes that the agenda is not
considered as “Minutes of the Management Review Committee” as required by Kinder Morgan
Procedure, L-O&M 1101.
3. § 195.446 Control room management.
h) Training. Each operator must establish a controller training program and review the
training program content to identify potential improvements at least once each calendar
year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months. An operator's program must provide for
training each controller to carry out the roles and responsibilities defined by the operator.
In addition, the training program must include the following elements:
(1) Responding to abnormal operating conditions likely to occur simultaneously or in
sequence;
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L.P. (Kinder Morgan) failed to establish the content of
controllers training program that includes the abnormal operating conditions (AOC) scenarios
likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence.
Kinder Morgan HCC Controller Training Plan, Section 2 (program) states-
“KM’s HCC Controller Training Plan is designed to ensure that all HCC Controllers
working on KM’s DOT-regulated pipeline facilities are CRM and OQ-qualified to perform
their roles, responsibilities and Operator qualified covered tasks, to document that
qualification and to reduce the probability and consequences of incidents and accidents. All
KM HCC employees performing these roles, responsibilities and covered tasks will be
qualified under this program



• Responding to abnormal operating conditions, as defined in the L-O&M 1101, likely to
occur simultaneously or in sequence.
During the inspection, PHMSA requested Kinder Morgan to provide the Controllers training
elements to ensure whether all the controllers are trained on multiple abnormal operating
conditions (AOCs) that could likely occur simultaneously or in sequence; Kinder Morgan
provided two (2) lists of AOC scenarios dated 8/14/2014, and 10/10/2014. PHMSA reviewed all
training scenarios and found that each scenario constitutes a single event (AOC) scenario instead
of having multiple events (AOC ) that could likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence as
required by § 195.446(h)(1).
4. §195.507 Recordkeeping
Each operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance with this subpart.
(a) Qualification records shall include:
(1) Identification of qualified individual(s);
(2) Identification of the covered tasks the individual is qualified to perform;
(3) Date(s) of current qualification; and
(4) Qualification method(s).
(b) Records supporting an individual's current qualification shall be maintained while the
individual is performing the covered task. Records of prior qualification and records of
individuals no longer performing covered tasks shall be retained for a period of five years.
Cypress failed to maintain the qualification records of an individual performing the Clock Spring
installation.
During the inspection, PHMSA requested Cypress’ qualification records of Clock Spring
Installer (Mr. Doug Taylor) who installed Clock Springs at four (4) locations on Cypress
Pipeline in 2010. Cypress provided the affidavit certificate of Clock Spring Installer (Mr. Doug
Taylor), dated September 9, 2014 provided by Clock Spring vendor. According to Kinder
Morgan, clock spring installation is a covered task (covered task# 102.13), and requires vendor
training and certification. PHMSA notes that the provided affidavit certificate demonstrates that
the Mr. Doug Taylor was trained on clock spring installation during the timeframe the clock
spring was installed, but Cypress is required to have a complete OQ qualification records (clock
spring installation) for individual performing the specified covered task on the pipeline; records
of individual no longer performing covered tasks for a period of five years.



Cypress Pipeline- 8" Mt. Belvieu to Spindletop and Spindletop to Westlake
Dig# Discovery Anomaly Excavation Date Repair
PL-115-Sp-Wl_31270_I 8/12/2010 Immediate 8/14/2010 Clock Spring
PL-115-Sp-Wl_21880_A 8/16/2010 180 Day 12/8/2010 Clock Spring
PL-115 MtB-S_7810_A 8/17/2010 180 Day 11/30/2010 Clock Spring
PL-115 MtB-S_7820_A 8/17/2010 180 Day 11/30/2010 Clock Spring
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000
per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of
violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not
exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a
related series of violations. We have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents
involved in this case, and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty
assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to correct the item(s) identified in this letter.
Failure to do so will result in Kinder Morgan being subject to additional enforcement action.
No reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer to
CPF 4-2015-5001W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement
action is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your
responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the
complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions
you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe
the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
Sincerely,
R. M. Seeley
Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 12968