{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420165026","title":"KINDER MORGAN WINK PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2016-08-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.404(c)(1), 195.406(a)(3), 195.432(b), 195.571, 195.573(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165026.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165026.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165026","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420165026","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving KINDER MORGAN WINK PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.404(c)(1),  195.406(a)(3),  195.432(b),  195.571,  195.573(d). The case was opened on 2016-08-03 and is reported as closed as of 2018-08-22. Proposed civil penalty: $183,800. Assessed civil penalty: $183,800. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420165026_Closure Letter_08222018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165026/420165026_Closure%20Letter_08222018.pdf\n\n420165026_Closure Letter_08222018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165026/420165026_Closure%20Letter_08222018_text.pdf\n\n420165026_Final Order_11302017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165026/420165026_Final%20Order_11302017.pdf\n\n420165026_Final Order_11302017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165026/420165026_Final%20Order_11302017_text.pdf\n\n420165026_NOPV PCP PCO_08032016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165026/420165026_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08032016.pdf\n\n420165026_NOPV PCP PCO_08032016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165026/420165026_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08032016_text.pdf\n\n420165026_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing_09082016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165026/420165026_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing_09082016.pdf\n\n420165026_Closure Letter_08222018_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nAugust 22, 2018\nTom Martin\nPresident, Natural Gas Pipelines Group\nKinder Morgan, Inc.\n1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000\nHouston, Texas 77002\nRe: CPF 4-2016-5026\nDear Mr. Martin:\nOn, November 30, 2017, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to your subsidiary, Kinder Morgan Wink Pipeline, LLC (KM Wink) a Final Order in the\nabove-referenced case. This Final Order included a Compliance Order. Based on our review of\nthe documentation provided, a subsequent meeting with Kinder Morgan officials to provide\nadditional clarification on actions taken, and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has\nbeen determined that KM Wink has 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,\nMary L. McDaniel, P.E.\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n420165026_Final Order_11302017_text.pdf\n\nNovember 30, 2017\nMr. Tom Martin\nPresident, Natural Gas Pipelines Group\nKinder Morgan, Inc.\n1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000\nHouston, Texas 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2016-5026\nDear Mr. Martin:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary,\nKinder Morgan Wink Pipeline, LLC. It makes findings of violations, assesses a civil penalty of\n$183,800, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Kinder Morgan Wink Pipeline, LLC, to\ncomply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final\nOrder. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed,\nas determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed.\nService of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing as provided\nunder 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nJessica Toll, Esquire, Assistant General Counsel, Kinder Morgan Wink Pipeline, LLC,\n370 Van Gordon Street, Lakewood, CO 80228\nMr. Kenneth H. Havens, Jr., Vice President-Source and Transportation, Kinder Morgan\nWink Pipeline, LLC, 1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000, Houston, TX 77002\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____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nKinder Morgan Wink Pipeline, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2016-5026\na subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc., )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn multiple occasions between October 6, 2014, and February 18, 2015, pursuant to\n49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety\ninspection of the facilities and records of Kinder Morgan Wink Pipeline, LLC (KM Wink or\nRespondent), a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc., in Wink, Texas. KM Wink has 454 miles of\ncrude oil pipelines and delivers approximately 145,000 barrels of oil per day.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated August 3, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to\n49 C.F.R. § 195.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nKM Wink had committed four violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $183,800 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to\ntake certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning item required no further\naction, but warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face possible enforcement\naction.\nKM Wink responded to the Notice by letter dated September 7, 2016 (Response). The company\ncontested Item 2 only, provided an explanation of its actions, requested that the proposed civil\npenalty be reduced, and requested a hearing. By letter dated March 3, 2017, Respondent\nwithdrew its challenge to Item 2 and waived its right to a hearing, but suggested that certain\nchanges be made to the proposed Compliance Order.\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Aug. 3, 2016) (on file with PHMSA), at 1;\n(https://www kindermorgan.com/pages/business/co2/pipelines/wink.aspx (last accessed Aug. 11, 2017).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5026\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nKM Wink did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as\nfollows:\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a)(3), which states:\n§ 195.406 Maximum operating pressure.\n(a) Except for surge pressures and other variations from normal\noperations, no operator may operate a pipeline at a pressure that exceeds\nany of the following: . . .\n(1) …\n(3) Eighty percent of the test pressure for any part of the pipeline which\nhas been pressure tested under subpart E of this part.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a)(3) by operating its pipeline\nat a pressure that exceeded eighty percent (80%) of the test pressure for any part of the pipeline\nthat had been pressure tested under subpart E of Part 195. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nfor 25 pipeline segments, the stated maximum operating pressure (MOP) exceeded what should\nhave been the actual MOP under § 195.406(a)(3). It further alleged that KM Wink exceeded the\nappropriate MOP because the company failed to correctly calculate the MOP using the lowest\ntest pressure seen during the test and failed to correctly adjust the pressure for elevation.\nFollowing the inspection, KM Wink recalculated the MOP for the pipelines (Wink to El Paso,\nSnyder to Wink, and McCamey to Wink) using the lowest pressure recorded during the first four\nhours of the test, but these new results still allegedly showed several segments with an incorrect\nMOP.\nIn its Response, Respondent contested this allegation of violation and requested a hearing\nregarding this Item. The company subsequently withdrew its objection based on KM Wink’s\nunderstanding that PHMSA would be issuing a modified compliance order. Accordingly, based\nupon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a)(3)\nby operating its pipeline at a pressure that exceeded 80% of the test pressure for any part of the\npipeline that had been pressure tested under subpart E of Part 195.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), which states:\n§ 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n(a) …\n(b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service\natmospheric and low-pressure steel above-ground breakout tanks according\nto API Std 653 (except section 6.4.3, Alternative Internal Inspection\nInterval) (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). However, if structural\nconditions prevent access to the tank bottom, its integrity may be assessed\naccording to a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual\nunder § 195.402(c)(3). The risk-based internal inspection procedures in\nAPI Std 653, section 6.4.3 cannot be used to determine the internal\ninspection interval.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5026\nPage 3\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to inspect the\nphysical integrity of in-service low-pressure above-ground breakout tanks at the required\nintervals according to American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 653. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that KM Wink failed to comply with the required interval of five years for performing\nExternal In-Service and Ultrasonic Thickness Inspections for six low-pressure breakout tanks.\nThe Notice alleged that Tank Nos. 3, 7, 8, 27, 28, and 29 did not receive such inspections at the\nrequired five-year intervals.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to inspect the\nphysical integrity of six in-service low-pressure above-ground breakout tanks at the required\nintervals according to API Standard 653.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d), which states:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) …\n(d) Breakout tanks. You must inspect each cathodic protection system\nused to control corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank to\nensure that operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with\nAPI RP 651 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). However, this\ninspection is not required if you note in the corrosion control procedures\nestablished under § 195.402(c)(3) why complying with all or certain\noperation and maintenance provisions of API RP 651 is not necessary for\nthe safety of the tank.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d) by failing to inspect each\ncathodic protection system used to control corrosion on the bottom of an above-ground breakout\ntank to ensure operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with API\nRecommended Practice (RP) 651. Specifically, the Notice alleged that KM Wink failed to\ninspect numerous cathodic protection test points for breakout tanks 7, 8, 27, 28, and 29 over the\nperiod 2012-2014. Additionally, there were test points with readings below the -850 mV criteria\nspecified in API RP 651 for adequate cathodic protection at breakout tanks 3, 8, and 29 over the\nperiod 2012-2014.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d) by failing to inspect each\ncathodic protection system used to control corrosion on the bottom of an above-ground breakout\ntank to ensure operation and maintenance of the systems are in accordance with API RP 651.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571, which states:\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\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5026\nPage 4\nprotection contained [in] paragraphs 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.2.5 and 6.3 in\nNACE SP 0169 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571 by failing to have adequate\ncathodic protection levels to meet the criteria required by NACE SP 0169, paragraphs 6.2 or 6.3,\non the El Paso to Wink pipeline. Specifically, the Notice alleged that for three consecutive years\n(2012 through 2014), at the same five locations, the 100 mV criteria was not attained. In\naddition, the native/static values were more negative than the IR free (current-off) values for 11\noccasions in the 2012 data, for seven occasions in the 2013 data, and for eight occasions in the\n2014 data.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571 by failing to have adequate\ncathodic protection levels on the El Paso to Wink pipeline.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.2 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $183,800 for the violations cited above.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $65,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.406(a)(3). As discussed above, I found that Respondent operated its pipeline at a pressure\nthat exceeded 80% of the test pressure for any part of the pipeline that had been pressure-tested\nunder subpart E of Part 195. KM withdrew its request for a hearing on this Item and no longer\ncontests the proposed penalty. I find the record supports the proposed penalty. Accordingly,\nhaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil\npenalty of $65,800 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a)(3).\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $37,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.432(b). As discussed above, I found that Respondent failed to inspect the physical\nintegrity of six in-service low-pressure above-ground breakout tanks at the required intervals\n2 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum\nCivil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5026\nPage 5\naccording to API Standard 653. KM Wink did not contest the allegations of violation but\nrequested that the penalty be mitigated because it had identified the overdue tank inspections and\ntaken action “to coordinate and expedite the scheduling of those inspections” prior to the OPS\ninspection. 3 Respondent explained the compliance actions it had taken to ensure that the\nviolation would not be repeated, including the implementation of new compliance-management\nsoftware and appropriate action plans.\nAlthough KM Wink may have identified and expedited the overdue tank inspections prior to the\n2014-15 PHMSA inspection, I find the information presented by Respondent insufficient to\njustify mitigation of the proposed penalty. First, by the time KM Wink identified the late\ninspections, they were long overdue, in some cases by as much as two years, and thus could not\nbe re-done or corrected. Second, the company has not presented any documentation or other\nevidence showing when it discovered the non-compliances or how the cause of the non-\ncompliances was subsequently corrected. While it is commendable that KM Wink discovered\nthe violation and took action to prevent a recurrence in the future, the fact remains that safety\nwas compromised by the company’s failure to conduct timely inspections. I therefore find no\njustification to reduce the proposed penalty.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $37,800 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b).\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $37,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.573(d). As discussed above, I found that Respondent failed to inspect each cathodic\nprotection system used to control corrosion on the bottom of above-ground breakout tanks. KM\nWink did not contest these allegations of violation but requested that the penalty be mitigated\nbased on compliance actions it had taken since the PHMSA inspection. I do not find that such\nactions justify a civil penalty reduction, because any prudent operator is expected to take\nappropriate corrective actions once a violation has been discovered during the course of a\nPHMSA inspection.4 Respondent failed to take appropriate action to comply with a requirement\nthat was clearly applicable, and as a result, pipeline integrity was compromised. This violation\nwas discovered by PHMSA. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $37,800 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.573(d).\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $42,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.571, for failing to have adequate cathodic protection levels to meet the criteria required by\nNACE SP 0169, paragraphs 6.2 or 6.3, on the El Paso to Wink pipeline. KM Wink did not\ncontest this allegation of violation but requested that the penalty be mitigated based on\ncompliance actions it had taken since the PHMSA inspection. As stated above, I do not find that\nsuch actions justify a civil penalty reduction, because any prudent operator is expected to take\nappropriate corrective actions once a violation has been discovered during the course of a\nPHMSA inspection. Respondent failed to take appropriate action to comply with a requirement\n3 Response at 3.\n4 See, e.g., Citgo Pipeline Co., Final Order, CPF No. 4-2005-5012, at 3 (July 14, 2005) (stating that corrective action\ntaken after the OPS inspection did not justify reducing the proposed penalty).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5026\nPage 6\nthat was clearly applicable, and as a result, pipeline integrity was compromised. This violation\nwas discovered by PHMSA. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $42,400 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.571.\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $183,800.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.\nThe Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $183,800 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual\nrate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2, 4, and 5 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.406(a)(3), 195.573(d), and 195.571, respectively. Under\n49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who\nowns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards\nestablished under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the\npipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.406(a)(3) (Item 2), Respondent must\ncalculate the MOP of each pipeline segment as required by § 195.406 and establish\nthe proper MOP for each line segment. KM Wink must reset all over-pressure\nprotection along each line segment. KM Wink has determined the MOP for each line\nsegment according to the procedure and calculations discussed and agreed upon with\nthe Region in the February 15, 2017 meeting held between the parties. KM Wink\nmust reset all affected over-pressure protection within 90 days following the receipt\nof this Final Order.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.573(d) (Item 4), Respondent must remediate\nlow and missing reads for each cathodic protection system used to control corrosion\non the bottom of each aboveground breakout tank in accordance with API RP 651.\nThis requirement refers to breakout tanks 3, 7, 8, 27, 28, and 29. KM Wink must\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5026\nPage 7\ncomplete the remediation work within 180 days from receipt of this Final Order.\n3. With respect to the violation of § 195.571 (Item 5), Respondent must remediate\nthe cathodic protection system along the El Paso to Wink pipeline to meet adequate\nCP levels and achieve the criteria established by NACE SP 0169, sections 6.2 to 6.3.\nKM Wink must complete the remediation work on the El Paso to Wink pipeline CP\nsystem to meet adequate CP levels within one year from receipt of this Final Order.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that KM Wink maintain documentation of the safety improvement\ncosts associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Director, Southwest\nRegion, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs\nbe reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans,\nprocedures, studies and analyses; and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and\nother changes to 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 $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\neach day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 1, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 195 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning\nitem. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(1) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to have records\ndocumenting the date, location, and description of pipeline repairs from previous years.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that from October 2013 through June 2014, KM Wink\nconducted seven dig-inspections on identified anomalies called by current ILI runs, only\nto discover that the anomalies had been previously repaired with composite or Type B\nsleeves. KM Liquid O&M Manual Procedure L-O&M 213, Section 5 “Documentation,\n5.1 Per requirements of DOT and NEB (OPR Section 41 and CSA Z662 Section 10.3.3),\n5.1.1” requires that employees “[p]roperly document all leaks and pipe repairs on L-\nOM200-02 Pipeline Inspection/Repair Report.”\nKM Wink presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress this cited item. If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection,\nRespondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5026\nPage 8\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and\nmeet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays\nthe payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective\naction, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The\nterms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nNovember 30, 2017\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n420165026_NOPV PCP PCO_08032016_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nAugust 3, 2016\nMr. Charles Fox\nKinder Morgan - Wink Pipeline LP\n500 Dallas, Suite 1000\nHouston, TX 77002\nCPF 4-2016-5026\nDear Charles Fox:\nOn multiple occasions between October 6, 2014 through February 18, 2015, representatives of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected your Wink Pipeline system\nin Wink, Texas.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the\nprobable violation(s) are:\n1. § 195.404 Maps and records.\n(c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the periods specified:\n(1) The date, location, and description of each repair made to pipe shall be\nmaintained for the useful life of the pipe.\n\n\n\n2. KM Wink failed to have records documenting the date, location, and description of\npipeline repairs from previous years.\nKM Liquid O&M Manual Procedure L-O&M 213 section 5 Documentation, 5.1 Per\nrequirements of DOT and NEB (OPR Section 41 and CSA Z662 Section 10.3.3), 5.1.1\nstates,\n“Properly document all leaks and pipe repairs on L-OM200-02\nPipeline Inspection/Repair Report”\nFrom October 2013 through June 2014, KM has conducted seven (7) dig-inspections on\nidentified anomalies called by current ILI runs only to discover that the anomalies have\nbeen previously repaired with composite or Type B sleeves.\n§ 195.406 Maximum operating pressure.\n(a) Except for surge pressures and other variations from normal operations, no\noperator may operate a pipeline at a pressure that exceeds any of the following\n(3) Eighty percent of the test pressure for any part of the pipeline which has\nbeen pressure tested under subpart E of this part.\nKinder Morgan Wink failed to correctly determine the MOPs for multiple pipeline\nsystems. These pipelines were buried when the pressure tests were conducted. Section\n195.304 Test Pressure states,\n“The test pressure for each pressure test conducted under this subpart\nmust be maintained throughout the part of the system being tested for at\nleast 4 continuous hours at a pressure equal to 125 percent, or more, of\nthe maximum operating pressure and, in the case of a pipeline that is not\nvisually inspected for leakage during the test, for at least an additional 4\ncontinuous hours at a pressure equal to 110 percent, or more, of the\nmaximum operating pressure.”\nKM Liquids O&M Procedure L-O&M 201 Maximum Operating Pressure (MOP)\nDetermination, section 4.2 Determining Maximum Operating and Control Pressures,\nparagraphs 4.2.1 and 4.2.1.3 state,\n“4.2.1. Except for surge pressures and other variations from normal\noperations, steel pipeline MOP shall not exceed any of the following:\n4.2.1.3. 80% of the test pressure for pipeline, (including\nfacility piping, as applicable) tested in accordance with DOT\n195 Subpart E - Hydrostatic Testing...”\nKM Liquids O&M Procedure L-O&M 1600 Strength and Leak Testing, section 4.2.4\nConducting the Post-Installation Test, 3rd bullet states,\n“Adjust test pressures for elevation by considering grade profiles and\ndeadweight elevation. Do not allow the pressure at the lowest elevation\nto exceed the maximum allowable test pressure or allow the pressure at\n2\n\n\n\n3. the highest elevation to drop below the minimum allowable test\npressure. Eliminate air from the test section. Allow an adequate period\nof time for temperature stabilization.”\nRecords demonstrate that for 25 segments the stated MOP exceeds what should be the\nactual MOP. KM failed to correctly use the lowest test pressure seen during the test and\nincorrectly adjusted the pressure for elevation. Following the inspection, KM Wink\nrecalculated the MOPs for the pipelines (Wink to El Paso, Snyder to Wink, and\nMcCamey to Wink) using the lowest pressure recorded during the first 4 hours of the test.\nThese new results still show several segments with incorrect MOP’s.\n§ 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n(b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and\nlow-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according to API Standard 653\n(incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). However, if structural conditions\nprevent access to the tank bottom, the bottom integrity may be assessed\naccording to a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual under\n§ 195.402(c)(3).\nKM Wink failed to inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-\npressure aboveground breakout tanks at the required intervals according to API Standard\n653. The operator failed to comply with the required interval of 5 years for the External\nIn-Service inspection and the Ultrasonic Thickness inspection.\nSix KM Wink low pressure breakout tanks have not received external and ultrasonic\nthickness inspections at the required interval pursuant to API 653. Specifically, tanks 3,\n7, 8, 27, 28, and 29 have not received external inspections at the required five-year\ninterval pursuant to API 653.\nThe details are as follows:\n Tank No. 3: Reviewed December 7, 2012 Report for EC/UT In-service Inspection,\nand the previous inspection was on February 3, 2005. Thus, Tank No. 3 exceeded the\n5-year inspection period required by API 653.\n Tank No. 27: Reviewed Out-of-Service inspection report dated July 7, 2009,\ndocumentation that an inspection was required in July 2014. Tank No. 27 was\ninspected on November 11, 2014, which exceeded the 5-year inspection period\nrequired by API 653.\n Tank No. 7: The tank was last inspected on December 4, 2012, external only, and\nwas previously inspection on April 24, 2006. Thus, Tank No. 7 exceeded the 5-year\ninspection period required by API 653.\n Tank No. 8: The In-Service EC/UT inspection report dated December 4, 2012 was\nreviewed. The prior inspection was done on October 9, 2006. Thus, Tank 8 exceeded\nthe 5-year inspection period required by API 653.\n3\n\n\n\n4.  Tank 28: An Out-of-Service inspection was done on January 1 - February 3, 2012.\nThe prior inspection was done on August 12, 2005. Thus, Tank 28 exceeded the 5-\nyear inspection period required by API 653.\n Tank 29: An Out-of-Service inspection was done on April 5-6, 2011. The prior In-\nService inspection was done on August 12, 2005. Thus, Tank 29 exceeded the 5-year\ninspection period required by API 653.\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(d) Breakout tanks. You must inspect each cathodic protection system used to\ncontrol corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank to ensure\nthat operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with API\nRecommended Practice 651. However, this inspection is not required if you note\nin the corrosion control procedures established under § 195.402(c)(3) why\ncompliance with all or certain operation and maintenance provisions of API\nRecommended Practice 651 is not necessary for the safety of the tank.\nKM Wink failed to ensure through inspection that the operations and maintenance of\neach cathodic protection system used to control corrosion on the bottom of an\naboveground breakout tank is in accordance with API Recommended Practice 651.\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA inspectors noted that KM Wink failed to inspect\nnumerous test points for breakout tanks 7, 8, 27, 28, and 29 over the period 2012-2014.\nAdditionally, there are test points below the -850 mV criteria for breakout tanks 3, 8, and\n29 over the period 2012-2014.\nPHMSA reviewed the cathodic protection records and found the following results:\n Tank 3 - 2012 CP read - center of tank floor below criteria from 4/28/2012 until\n4/12/2014\n Tank 7 - 2012 CP reads - missing the center and mid-center reads from 4/28/2012\nuntil 4/5/2014\n Tank 8 - 2012 CP reads - the center and mid-center reads below criteria from\n4/28/2012 and missing on 5/8/2013 & 4/12/2014\n Tank 27 - 2012 CP reads - the center, mid-center, NE, NW, SE, & SW reads are\nmissing from 4/28/2012 forward.\n Tank 28 - 2012 CP reads - all reads missing for year 2012; the center, mid-center,\nNE, NW, SE, & SW reads are missing from 5/08/2013 forward.\n Tank 29 - 2012 CP reads - the center and mid-center reads below criteria from\n4/28/2012, and the NE, NW, SE, & SW reads are missing from 4/28/2012 forward.\n4\n\n\n\n5. §195.571 What criteria must I use to determine the adequacy of cathodic\nprotection?\nCathodic protection required by this subpart must comply with one or more of the\napplicable criteria and other considerations for cathodic protection contained\nparagraphs 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.2.5 and 6.3 in NACE SP 0169 (incorporated by\nreference, see § 195.3).\nKM Wink records do not demonstrate the operator achieved adequate cathodic protection\nlevels to meet the criteria required by NACE SP 0169 paragraphs 6.2 or 6.3 on the El\nPaso to Wink pipeline.\nThe data was reviewed covered the three year period (2012-2014). Records for the El\nPaso to Wink, Wink to McCamie, and the Wink to Snyder pipeline segments in the\nCPDM system were reviewed. An -0.850 mV cathodic protection applied criteria and a\n100 mV cathodic polarization criteria are identified for each test point.\nRecords for 2012 through 2014 on the El Paso to Wink pipeline identify numerous\nlocations that did not meet the stated 100 mV polarization criteria. For three consecutive\nyears (2012 through 2014), at the same 5 locations, the 100 mV criteria was not attained.\nStill further, the native/static values were more negative than the IR free (current-off)\nvalues for 11 occasions in the 2012 data, for 7 occasions in the 2013 data, and for 8\noccasions in the 2014 data.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000\nper violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of\nviolations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not\nexceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a\nrelated series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that\nyou be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $183,800 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n2 $65,800\n3 $37,800\n4 $37,800\n5 $42,400\nWarning Items\nWith respect to item 1, we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved\nin this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment\n5\n\n\n\nproceedings at this time. result in additional enforcement action.\nWe advise you to promptly correct these item(s). Failure to do so may\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 2, 4, and 5, pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Wink\nPipeline LP. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part\nof this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All\nmaterial you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If\nyou believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment\nunder 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second\ncopy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted\nand an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice,\nthis constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further\nnotice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2016-5026 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nR.M. Seeley\nDirector, SW Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n6\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Wink Pipeline LP a Compliance Order\nincorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Wink Pipeline LP\nwith the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. 4. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to the failure of KM Wink to\ncorrectly determine the MOPs of the pipeline system and therefore operate\npipelines at pressures that exceed the requirements of §195.406(a)(3), KM Wink\nmust calculate the MOP of each pipeline segment as required by §195.406 and\nestablish the proper MOP for each line segment. KM Wink must reset all over-\npressure protection along each line segment. KM Wink must correctly determine\nand establish the MOP for each line segment and reset all affected over-pressure\nprotection within 90 days following the receipt of the Final Order.\nIn regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to the failure of KM Wink to\nensure through inspection the operation and maintenance of each cathodic\nprotection system used to control corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground\nbreakout tank is in accordance with API RP 651, KM Wink must remediate low\nand missing reads for each cathodic protection system used to control corrosion\non the bottom of each aboveground breakout tank in accordance with API RP\n651. This requirement refers to breakout tanks 3, 7, 8, 27, 28, and 29. KM must\ncomplete the remediation work within 180 days from receipt of the Final Order.\nIn regard to Item Number 5 of t","truncated":true,"body_characters":41098}