# KINDER MORGAN WINK PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

420165026_Closure Letter_08222018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165026/420165026_Closure%20Letter_08222018.pdf

420165026_Closure Letter_08222018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165026/420165026_Closure%20Letter_08222018_text.pdf

420165026_Final Order_11302017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165026/420165026_Final%20Order_11302017.pdf

420165026_Final Order_11302017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165026/420165026_Final%20Order_11302017_text.pdf

420165026_NOPV PCP PCO_08032016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165026/420165026_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08032016.pdf

420165026_NOPV PCP PCO_08032016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165026/420165026_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08032016_text.pdf

420165026_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

420165026_Closure Letter_08222018_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
August 22, 2018
Tom Martin
President, Natural Gas Pipelines Group
Kinder Morgan, Inc.
1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000
Houston, Texas 77002
Re: CPF 4-2016-5026
Dear Mr. Martin:
On, November 30, 2017, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to your subsidiary, Kinder Morgan Wink Pipeline, LLC (KM Wink) a Final Order in the
above-referenced case. This Final Order included a Compliance Order. Based on our review of
the documentation provided, a subsequent meeting with Kinder Morgan officials to provide
additional clarification on actions taken, and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has
been determined that KM Wink has 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,
Mary L. McDaniel, P.E.
Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

420165026_Final Order_11302017_text.pdf

November 30, 2017
Mr. Tom Martin
President, Natural Gas Pipelines Group
Kinder Morgan, Inc.
1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000
Houston, Texas 77002
Re: CPF No. 4-2016-5026
Dear Mr. Martin:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary,
Kinder Morgan Wink Pipeline, LLC. It makes findings of violations, assesses a civil penalty of
$183,800, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Kinder Morgan Wink Pipeline, LLC, to
comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final
Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed,
as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed.
Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing as provided
under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Jessica Toll, Esquire, Assistant General Counsel, Kinder Morgan Wink Pipeline, LLC,
370 Van Gordon Street, Lakewood, CO 80228
Mr. Kenneth H. Havens, Jr., Vice President-Source and Transportation, Kinder Morgan
Wink Pipeline, LLC, 1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000, Houston, TX 77002
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 Wink Pipeline, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2016-5026
a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc., )
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On multiple occasions between October 6, 2014, and February 18, 2015, pursuant to
49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives 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 Wink Pipeline, LLC (KM Wink or
Respondent), a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc., in Wink, Texas. KM Wink has 454 miles of
crude oil pipelines and delivers approximately 145,000 barrels of oil per day.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated August 3, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to
49 C.F.R. § 195.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that
KM Wink had committed four violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil
penalty of $183,800 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to
take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning item required no further
action, but warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face possible enforcement
action.
KM Wink responded to the Notice by letter dated September 7, 2016 (Response). The company
contested Item 2 only, provided an explanation of its actions, requested that the proposed civil
penalty be reduced, and requested a hearing. By letter dated March 3, 2017, Respondent
withdrew its challenge to Item 2 and waived its right to a hearing, but suggested that certain
changes be made to the proposed Compliance Order.
1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Aug. 3, 2016) (on file with PHMSA), at 1;
(https://www kindermorgan.com/pages/business/co2/pipelines/wink.aspx (last accessed Aug. 11, 2017).



CPF No. 4-2016-5026
Page 2
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
KM Wink did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as
follows:
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a)(3), which states:
§ 195.406 Maximum operating pressure.
(a) Except for surge pressures and other variations from normal
operations, no operator may operate a pipeline at a pressure that exceeds
any of the following: . . .
(1) …
(3) Eighty percent of the test pressure for any part of the pipeline which
has been pressure tested under subpart E of this part.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a)(3) by operating its pipeline
at a pressure that exceeded eighty percent (80%) of the test pressure for any part of the pipeline
that had been pressure tested under subpart E of Part 195. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
for 25 pipeline segments, the stated maximum operating pressure (MOP) exceeded what should
have been the actual MOP under § 195.406(a)(3). It further alleged that KM Wink exceeded the
appropriate MOP because the company failed to correctly calculate the MOP using the lowest
test pressure seen during the test and failed to correctly adjust the pressure for elevation.
Following the inspection, KM Wink recalculated the MOP for the pipelines (Wink to El Paso,
Snyder to Wink, and McCamey to Wink) using the lowest pressure recorded during the first four
hours of the test, but these new results still allegedly showed several segments with an incorrect
MOP.
In its Response, Respondent contested this allegation of violation and requested a hearing
regarding this Item. The company subsequently withdrew its objection based on KM Wink’s
understanding that PHMSA would be issuing a modified compliance order. Accordingly, based
upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a)(3)
by operating its pipeline at a pressure that exceeded 80% of the test pressure for any part of the
pipeline that had been pressure tested under subpart E of Part 195.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), which states:
§ 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 above-ground breakout tanks according
to API Std 653 (except section 6.4.3, Alternative Internal Inspection
Interval) (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). However, if structural
conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, its integrity may be assessed
according to a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual
under § 195.402(c)(3). The risk-based internal inspection procedures in
API Std 653, section 6.4.3 cannot be used to determine the internal
inspection interval.



CPF No. 4-2016-5026
Page 3
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to inspect the
physical integrity of in-service low-pressure above-ground breakout tanks at the required
intervals according to American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 653. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that KM Wink failed to comply with the required interval of five years for performing
External In-Service and Ultrasonic Thickness Inspections for six low-pressure breakout tanks.
The Notice alleged that Tank Nos. 3, 7, 8, 27, 28, and 29 did not receive such inspections at the
required five-year intervals.
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 six in-service low-pressure above-ground breakout tanks at the required
intervals according to API Standard 653.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d), which states:
§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(a) …
(d) Breakout tanks. You must inspect each cathodic protection system
used to control corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank to
ensure that operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with
API RP 651 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). However, this
inspection is not required if you note in the corrosion control procedures
established under § 195.402(c)(3) why complying with all or certain
operation and maintenance provisions of API RP 651 is not necessary for
the safety of the tank.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d) by failing to inspect each
cathodic protection system used to control corrosion on the bottom of an above-ground breakout
tank to ensure operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with API
Recommended Practice (RP) 651. Specifically, the Notice alleged that KM Wink failed to
inspect numerous cathodic protection test points for breakout tanks 7, 8, 27, 28, and 29 over the
period 2012-2014. Additionally, there were test points with readings below the -850 mV criteria
specified in API RP 651 for adequate cathodic protection at breakout tanks 3, 8, and 29 over the
period 2012-2014.
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. § 195.573(d) by failing to inspect each
cathodic protection system used to control corrosion on the bottom of an above-ground breakout
tank to ensure operation and maintenance of the systems are in accordance with API RP 651.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571, which states:
§ 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



CPF No. 4-2016-5026
Page 4
protection contained [in] paragraphs 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.2.5 and 6.3 in
NACE SP 0169 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571 by failing to have adequate
cathodic protection levels to meet the criteria required by NACE SP 0169, paragraphs 6.2 or 6.3,
on the El Paso to Wink pipeline. Specifically, the Notice alleged that for three consecutive years
(2012 through 2014), at the same five locations, the 100 mV criteria was not attained. In
addition, the native/static values were more negative than the IR free (current-off) values for 11
occasions in the 2012 data, for seven occasions in the 2013 data, and for eight occasions in the
2014 data.
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. § 195.571 by failing to have adequate
cathodic protection levels on the El Paso to Wink pipeline.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.2 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect
that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of
Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may
consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of
subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total
civil penalty of $183,800 for the violations cited above.
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $65,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.406(a)(3). As discussed above, I found that Respondent operated its pipeline at a pressure
that exceeded 80% of the test pressure for any part of the pipeline that had been pressure-tested
under subpart E of Part 195. KM withdrew its request for a hearing on this Item and no longer
contests the proposed penalty. I find the record supports the proposed penalty. Accordingly,
having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil
penalty of $65,800 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a)(3).
Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $37,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.432(b). As discussed above, I found that Respondent failed to inspect the physical
integrity of six in-service low-pressure above-ground breakout tanks at the required intervals
2 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum
Civil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).



CPF No. 4-2016-5026
Page 5
according to API Standard 653. KM Wink did not contest the allegations of violation but
requested that the penalty be mitigated because it had identified the overdue tank inspections and
taken action “to coordinate and expedite the scheduling of those inspections” prior to the OPS
inspection. 3 Respondent explained the compliance actions it had taken to ensure that the
violation would not be repeated, including the implementation of new compliance-management
software and appropriate action plans.
Although KM Wink may have identified and expedited the overdue tank inspections prior to the
2014-15 PHMSA inspection, I find the information presented by Respondent insufficient to
justify mitigation of the proposed penalty. First, by the time KM Wink identified the late
inspections, they were long overdue, in some cases by as much as two years, and thus could not
be re-done or corrected. Second, the company has not presented any documentation or other
evidence showing when it discovered the non-compliances or how the cause of the non-
compliances was subsequently corrected. While it is commendable that KM Wink discovered
the violation and took action to prevent a recurrence in the future, the fact remains that safety
was compromised by the company’s failure to conduct timely inspections. I therefore find no
justification to reduce the proposed penalty.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $37,800 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b).
Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $37,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.573(d). As discussed above, I found that Respondent failed to inspect each cathodic
protection system used to control corrosion on the bottom of above-ground breakout tanks. KM
Wink did not contest these allegations of violation but requested that the penalty be mitigated
based on compliance actions it had taken since the PHMSA inspection. I do not find that such
actions justify a civil penalty reduction, because any prudent operator is expected to take
appropriate corrective actions once a violation has been discovered during the course of a
PHMSA inspection.4 Respondent failed to take appropriate action to comply with a requirement
that was clearly applicable, and as a result, pipeline integrity was compromised. This violation
was discovered by PHMSA. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the
assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $37,800 for violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.573(d).
Item 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $42,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.571, for failing to have adequate cathodic protection levels to meet the criteria required by
NACE SP 0169, paragraphs 6.2 or 6.3, on the El Paso to Wink pipeline. KM Wink did not
contest this allegation of violation but requested that the penalty be mitigated based on
compliance actions it had taken since the PHMSA inspection. As stated above, I do not find that
such actions justify a civil penalty reduction, because any prudent operator is expected to take
appropriate corrective actions once a violation has been discovered during the course of a
PHMSA inspection. Respondent failed to take appropriate action to comply with a requirement
3 Response at 3.
4 See, e.g., Citgo Pipeline Co., Final Order, CPF No. 4-2005-5012, at 3 (July 14, 2005) (stating that corrective action
taken after the OPS inspection did not justify reducing the proposed penalty).



CPF No. 4-2016-5026
Page 6
that was clearly applicable, and as a result, pipeline integrity was compromised. This violation
was discovered by PHMSA. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the
assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $42,400 for violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.571.
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $183,800.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.
The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
Failure to pay the $183,800 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual
rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2, 4, and 5 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.406(a)(3), 195.573(d), and 195.571, 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. With respect to the violation of § 195.406(a)(3) (Item 2), Respondent must
calculate the MOP of each pipeline segment as required by § 195.406 and establish
the proper MOP for each line segment. KM Wink must reset all over-pressure
protection along each line segment. KM Wink has determined the MOP for each line
segment according to the procedure and calculations discussed and agreed upon with
the Region in the February 15, 2017 meeting held between the parties. KM Wink
must reset all affected over-pressure protection within 90 days following the receipt
of this Final Order.
2. With respect to the violation of § 195.573(d) (Item 4), Respondent must remediate
low and missing reads for each cathodic protection system used to control corrosion
on the bottom of each aboveground breakout tank in accordance with API RP 651.
This requirement refers to breakout tanks 3, 7, 8, 27, 28, and 29. KM Wink must



CPF No. 4-2016-5026
Page 7
complete the remediation work within 180 days from receipt of this Final Order.
3. With respect to the violation of § 195.571 (Item 5), Respondent must remediate
the cathodic protection system along the El Paso to Wink pipeline to meet adequate
CP levels and achieve the criteria established by NACE SP 0169, sections 6.2 to 6.3.
KM Wink must complete the remediation work on the El Paso to Wink pipeline CP
system to meet adequate CP levels within one year from receipt of this Final Order.
It is requested (not mandated) that KM Wink maintain documentation of the safety improvement
costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Director, Southwest
Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 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 changes to 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 $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), 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.
WARNING ITEM
With respect to Item 1, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 195 but did not propose a
civil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning
item. The warning was for:
49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(1) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to have records
documenting the date, location, and description of pipeline repairs from previous years.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that from October 2013 through June 2014, KM Wink
conducted seven dig-inspections on identified anomalies called by current ILI runs, only
to discover that the anomalies had been previously repaired with composite or Type B
sleeves. KM Liquid O&M Manual Procedure L-O&M 213, Section 5 “Documentation,
5.1 Per requirements of DOT and NEB (OPR Section 41 and CSA Z662 Section 10.3.3),
5.1.1” requires that employees “[p]roperly document all leaks and pipe repairs on L-
OM200-02 Pipeline Inspection/Repair Report.”
KM Wink presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to
address this cited item. If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection,
Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final
Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey



CPF No. 4-2016-5026
Page 8
Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of
Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this
Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and
meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays
the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective
action, remain in effect 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.
November 30, 2017
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

420165026_NOPV PCP PCO_08032016_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
August 3, 2016
Mr. Charles Fox
Kinder Morgan - Wink Pipeline LP
500 Dallas, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77002
CPF 4-2016-5026
Dear Charles Fox:
On multiple occasions between October 6, 2014 through February 18, 2015, representatives of
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected your Wink Pipeline system
in Wink, Texas.
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 violation(s) are:
1. § 195.404 Maps and records.
(c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the periods specified:
(1) The date, location, and description of each repair made to pipe shall be
maintained for the useful life of the pipe.



2. KM Wink failed to have records documenting the date, location, and description of
pipeline repairs from previous years.
KM Liquid O&M Manual Procedure L-O&M 213 section 5 Documentation, 5.1 Per
requirements of DOT and NEB (OPR Section 41 and CSA Z662 Section 10.3.3), 5.1.1
states,
“Properly document all leaks and pipe repairs on L-OM200-02
Pipeline Inspection/Repair Report”
From October 2013 through June 2014, KM has conducted seven (7) dig-inspections on
identified anomalies called by current ILI runs only to discover that the anomalies have
been previously repaired with composite or Type B sleeves.
§ 195.406 Maximum operating pressure.
(a) Except for surge pressures and other variations from normal operations, no
operator may operate a pipeline at a pressure that exceeds any of the following
(3) Eighty percent of the test pressure for any part of the pipeline which has
been pressure tested under subpart E of this part.
Kinder Morgan Wink failed to correctly determine the MOPs for multiple pipeline
systems. These pipelines were buried when the pressure tests were conducted. Section
195.304 Test Pressure states,
“The test pressure for each pressure test conducted under this subpart
must be maintained throughout the part of the system being tested for at
least 4 continuous hours at a pressure equal to 125 percent, or more, of
the maximum operating pressure and, in the case of a pipeline that is not
visually inspected for leakage during the test, for at least an additional 4
continuous hours at a pressure equal to 110 percent, or more, of the
maximum operating pressure.”
KM Liquids O&M Procedure L-O&M 201 Maximum Operating Pressure (MOP)
Determination, section 4.2 Determining Maximum Operating and Control Pressures,
paragraphs 4.2.1 and 4.2.1.3 state,
“4.2.1. Except for surge pressures and other variations from normal
operations, steel pipeline MOP shall not exceed any of the following:
4.2.1.3. 80% of the test pressure for pipeline, (including
facility piping, as applicable) tested in accordance with DOT
195 Subpart E - Hydrostatic Testing...”
KM Liquids O&M Procedure L-O&M 1600 Strength and Leak Testing, section 4.2.4
Conducting the Post-Installation Test, 3rd bullet states,
“Adjust test pressures for elevation by considering grade profiles and
deadweight elevation. Do not allow the pressure at the lowest elevation
to exceed the maximum allowable test pressure or allow the pressure at
2



3. the highest elevation to drop below the minimum allowable test
pressure. Eliminate air from the test section. Allow an adequate period
of time for temperature stabilization.”
Records demonstrate that for 25 segments the stated MOP exceeds what should be the
actual MOP. KM failed to correctly use the lowest test pressure seen during the test and
incorrectly adjusted the pressure for elevation. Following the inspection, KM Wink
recalculated the MOPs for the pipelines (Wink to El Paso, Snyder to Wink, and
McCamey to Wink) using the lowest pressure recorded during the first 4 hours of the test.
These new results still show several segments with incorrect MOP’s.
§ 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.
(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).
KM Wink failed to inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-
pressure aboveground breakout tanks at the required intervals according to API Standard
653. The operator failed to comply with the required interval of 5 years for the External
In-Service inspection and the Ultrasonic Thickness inspection.
Six KM Wink low pressure breakout tanks have not received external and ultrasonic
thickness inspections at the required interval pursuant to API 653. Specifically, tanks 3,
7, 8, 27, 28, and 29 have not received external inspections at the required five-year
interval pursuant to API 653.
The details are as follows:
 Tank No. 3: Reviewed December 7, 2012 Report for EC/UT In-service Inspection,
and the previous inspection was on February 3, 2005. Thus, Tank No. 3 exceeded the
5-year inspection period required by API 653.
 Tank No. 27: Reviewed Out-of-Service inspection report dated July 7, 2009,
documentation that an inspection was required in July 2014. Tank No. 27 was
inspected on November 11, 2014, which exceeded the 5-year inspection period
required by API 653.
 Tank No. 7: The tank was last inspected on December 4, 2012, external only, and
was previously inspection on April 24, 2006. Thus, Tank No. 7 exceeded the 5-year
inspection period required by API 653.
 Tank No. 8: The In-Service EC/UT inspection report dated December 4, 2012 was
reviewed. The prior inspection was done on October 9, 2006. Thus, Tank 8 exceeded
the 5-year inspection period required by API 653.
3



4.  Tank 28: An Out-of-Service inspection was done on January 1 - February 3, 2012.
The prior inspection was done on August 12, 2005. Thus, Tank 28 exceeded the 5-
year inspection period required by API 653.
 Tank 29: An Out-of-Service inspection was done on April 5-6, 2011. The prior In-
Service inspection was done on August 12, 2005. Thus, Tank 29 exceeded the 5-year
inspection period required by API 653.
§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(d) Breakout tanks. You must inspect each cathodic protection system used to
control corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank to ensure
that operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with API
Recommended Practice 651. However, this inspection is not required if you note
in the corrosion control procedures established under § 195.402(c)(3) why
compliance with all or certain operation and maintenance provisions of API
Recommended Practice 651 is not necessary for the safety of the tank.
KM Wink failed to ensure through inspection that the operations and maintenance of
each cathodic protection system used to control corrosion on the bottom of an
aboveground breakout tank is in accordance with API Recommended Practice 651.
During the inspection, PHMSA inspectors noted that KM Wink failed to inspect
numerous test points for breakout tanks 7, 8, 27, 28, and 29 over the period 2012-2014.
Additionally, there are test points below the -850 mV criteria for breakout tanks 3, 8, and
29 over the period 2012-2014.
PHMSA reviewed the cathodic protection records and found the following results:
 Tank 3 - 2012 CP read - center of tank floor below criteria from 4/28/2012 until
4/12/2014
 Tank 7 - 2012 CP reads - missing the center and mid-center reads from 4/28/2012
until 4/5/2014
 Tank 8 - 2012 CP reads - the center and mid-center reads below criteria from
4/28/2012 and missing on 5/8/2013 & 4/12/2014
 Tank 27 - 2012 CP reads - the center, mid-center, NE, NW, SE, & SW reads are
missing from 4/28/2012 forward.
 Tank 28 - 2012 CP reads - all reads missing for year 2012; the center, mid-center,
NE, NW, SE, & SW reads are missing from 5/08/2013 forward.
 Tank 29 - 2012 CP reads - the center and mid-center reads below criteria from
4/28/2012, and the NE, NW, SE, & SW reads are missing from 4/28/2012 forward.
4



5. §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
paragraphs 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.2.5 and 6.3 in NACE SP 0169 (incorporated by
reference, see § 195.3).
KM Wink records do not demonstrate the operator achieved adequate cathodic protection
levels to meet the criteria required by NACE SP 0169 paragraphs 6.2 or 6.3 on the El
Paso to Wink pipeline.
The data was reviewed covered the three year period (2012-2014). Records for the El
Paso to Wink, Wink to McCamie, and the Wink to Snyder pipeline segments in the
CPDM system were reviewed. An -0.850 mV cathodic protection applied criteria and a
100 mV cathodic polarization criteria are identified for each test point.
Records for 2012 through 2014 on the El Paso to Wink pipeline identify numerous
locations that did not meet the stated 100 mV polarization criteria. For three consecutive
years (2012 through 2014), at the same 5 locations, the 100 mV criteria was not attained.
Still further, the native/static values were more negative than the IR free (current-off)
values for 11 occasions in the 2012 data, for 7 occasions in the 2013 data, and for 8
occasions in the 2014 data.
Proposed Civil Penalty
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. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and
supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that
you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $183,800 as follows:
Item number PENALTY
2 $65,800
3 $37,800
4 $37,800
5 $42,400
Warning Items
With respect to item 1, we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved
in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment
5



proceedings at this time. result in additional enforcement action.
We advise you to promptly correct these item(s). Failure to do so may
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to items 2, 4, and 5, pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Wink
Pipeline LP. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part
of this Notice.
Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators
in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All
material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be 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). If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice,
this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further
notice to you and to issue a Final Order.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2016-5026 and for each document
you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
R.M. Seeley
Director, SW Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
6



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Wink Pipeline LP a Compliance Order
incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Wink Pipeline LP
with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. 2. 3. 4. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to the failure of KM Wink to
correctly determine the MOPs of the pipeline system and therefore operate
pipelines at pressures that exceed the requirements of §195.406(a)(3), KM Wink
must calculate the MOP of each pipeline segment as required by §195.406 and
establish the proper MOP for each line segment. KM Wink must reset all over-
pressure protection along each line segment. KM Wink must correctly determine
and establish the MOP for each line segment and reset all affected over-pressure
protection within 90 days following the receipt of the Final Order.
In regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to the failure of KM Wink to
ensure through inspection the operation and maintenance of each cathodic
protection system used to control corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground
breakout tank is in accordance with API RP 651, KM Wink must remediate low
and missing reads for each cathodic protection system used to control corrosion
on the bottom of each aboveground breakout tank in accordance with API RP
651. This requirement refers to breakout tanks 3, 7, 8, 27, 28, and 29. KM must
complete the remediation work within 180 days from receipt of the Final Order.
In regard to Item Number 5 of t
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 41098