{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520115005","title":"EXPRESS HOLDINGS (USA), LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2011-02-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.404(a)(1), 195.428(a), 195.430, 195.569, 195.573(c), 195.577(a), 195.579(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520115005.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520115005.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520115005","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520115005","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving EXPRESS HOLDINGS (USA), LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.404(a)(1),  195.428(a),  195.430,  195.569,  195.573(c),  195.577(a),  195.579(b). The case was opened on 2011-02-28 and is reported as closed as of 2012-05-30. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520115005_closure letter_05302012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520115005/520115005_closure%20letter_05302012.pdf\n\n520115005_closure letter_05302012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520115005/520115005_closure%20letter_05302012_text.pdf\n\n520115005_FinalOrder_03232012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520115005/520115005_FinalOrder_03232012.pdf\n\n520115005_FinalOrder_03232012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520115005/520115005_FinalOrder_03232012_text.pdf\n\n520115005_NOPV PCO_02282011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520115005/520115005_NOPV%20PCO_02282011.pdf\n\n520115005_NOPV PCO_02282011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520115005/520115005_NOPV%20PCO_02282011_text.pdf\n\n520115005_Operator_Response_03292011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520115005/520115005_Operator_Response_03292011.pdf\n\n520115005_closure letter_05302012_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMay 30, 2012\nMr. Dean D. Dick\nOperations Director Southern Region\nKinder Morgan Pipelines (USA) Inc.\n800 Werner Court, Suite 352\nCasper, WY 82601\nCPF 5-2011-5005\nDear Mr. Dick:\nOn March 23, 2012, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued Kinder Morgan Pipelines (USA) Inc. a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This\nOrder included a Compliance Order. Based on our review of the documentation you provided,\nit has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 J. Davis (#128420)\n\n520115005_FinalOrder_03232012_text.pdf\n\nMAR 23 2012\nMr. Ian Anderson\nPresident\nKinder Morgan Pipelines (USA), Inc.\n5th Avenue SW\nSuite 2700 - 300\nCalgary, Canada\nT2P – 5J2\nRe: CPF No. 5-2011-5005\nDear Mr. Anderson:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Kinder Morgan Pipelines (USA), Inc.,\nto comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have\nbeen completed, as determined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will\nbe closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of\nmailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nMr. Dean Dick, Operations Director, Kinder Morgan Pipelines (USA), Inc.\n800 Werner Court, Suite 352, Casper, Wyoming 82601\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nKinder Morgan Pipelines (USA), Inc., ) CPF No. 5-2011-5005\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn August 1 to 6, 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Kinder Morgan\nPipelines (USA), Inc. (Kinder Morgan or Respondent), in Wyoming and Montana. The\nparticular focus of the inspection was Kinder Morgan’s Express Pipeline, a 783-mile pipeline\nthat transports crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada, to Casper, Wyoming.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated February 28, 2011, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Kinder Morgan had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The\nNotice also proposed finding that Respondent had committed certain other probable violations of\n49 C.F.R. Part 195 and warning Respondent to take appropriate corrective action or be subject to\nfuture enforcement action.\nKinder Morgan responded to the Notice by letter dated March 29, 2011 (Response). The\ncompany contested some of the allegations of violation and provided information concerning the\ncorrective actions it had taken. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived\nits right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\n1 http://www.kindermorgan.com/business/canada/express_platte.cfm (last accessed Nov. 12, 2011).\n\n\n\n2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(1)-(4), which states:\n§ 195.404 Maps and records.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its pipeline\nsystems that include at least the following information:\n(1) Location and identification of the following pipeline facilities:\n(i) Breakout tanks;\n(ii) Pump stations;\n(iii) Scraper and sphere facilities;\n(iv) Pipeline valves;\n(v) Facilities to which § 195.402(c)(9) applies;\n(vi) Rights-of-way; and\n(vii) Safety devices to which § 195.428 applies.\n(2) All crossings of public roads, railroads, rivers, buried utilities, and\nforeign pipelines.\n(3) The maximum operating pressure of each pipeline.\n(4) The diameter, grade, type, and nominal wall thickness of all pipe.\nThe Notice alleged that Kinder Morgan violated § 195.404(a)(1)-(4) by failing to maintain\ncurrent maps and record of its pipeline system. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent\nhad not updated its alignment sheets since 2003, and that field personnel were still using\nalignment sheets dating from 1998.2\nIn its Response, Kinder Morgan stated that the company was in the process of updating its\nalignment sheets at the time of the OPS inspection. Kinder Morgan further stated that it had\nfinished that project on November 1, 2010, and that it had provided the current alignment sheets\nto all of its field personnel.\nRespondent did not dispute the allegation that its alignment sheets were outdated at the time of\nthe OPS inspection. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(1)-(4) by failing to maintain current maps and records of its\npipeline system.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:\n§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator\nshall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at\nintervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year,\ninspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure\nregulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it\n2 The Notice also alleged that Kinder Morgan had failed to make certain other records available, as required under\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(1). As the allegation of violation in Item 1 relates solely to the maps and records\nrequirements in § 195.404, no further consideration will be given to Kinder Morgan’s compliance with the\nrequirements in § 195.402(c)(1).\n\n\n\n3\nis functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate\nfrom the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service\nin which it is used.\nThe Notice alleged that Kinder Morgan violated § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test the\npressure control equipment at the Wild Horse Pump Station, at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths but at least once each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the Wild Horse\nPump Station was located in Canada and operated by another Kinder Morgan subsidiary, yet it\nprovided the sole pressure and overpressure protection for that portion of the Express Pipeline\nfrom the Canadian border to the Faulkners Coulee Pump Station. The Notice further alleged that\nat the time of the OPS inspection, Kinder Morgan had no evidence showing that the pressure\ncontrol equipment at the Wild Horse Pump Station had been inspected and tested at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.\nIn its Response, Kinder Morgan stated that the pressure control equipment at the Wild Horse\nPump Station had been inspected and tested at the prescribed intervals. Kinder Morgan further\nstated that the documentation from those inspections and tests was kept at its offices in Hardisty,\nAlberta, Canada, but that such records could be accessed online by its U.S. personnel at any\ntime. Kinder Morgan also stated that it would provide those records to OPS.\nOPS has received the inspection and testing records for the pressure control equipment at the\nWild Horse Pump Station, and is satisfied that the records show that the required tests and\ninspections did occur at the prescribed intervals. Accordingly, after considering all of the\nevidence, I am withdrawing this allegation of violation.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.430, which states:\n§ 195.430 Firefighting equipment.\nEach operator shall maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each\npump station and breakout tank area. The equipment must be—\n(a) In proper operating condition at all times;\n(b) Plainly marked so that its identity as firefighting equipment is\nclear; and\n(c) Located so that it is easily accessible during a fire.\nThe Notice alleged that Kinder Morgan violated § 195.430 by failing to maintain adequate\nfirefighting equipment at each pump station and breakout tank area. In particular, the Notice\nalleged that Kinder Morgan had not distributed tactical firefighting “preplans” for its pump\nstations and breakout tanks to local firefighting organizations within Montana. It stated that\nthese preplans were supposed to describe the equipment and products needed for fighting fires at\neach Kinder Morgan facility. The Notice alleged that Kinder Morgan had indicated that it\nplanned to distribute the preplans and to coordinate with local firefighting organizations, but that\nthe company had not yet determined what fire equipment was needed at each pump station and\ntank.\n\n\n\n4\nIn its Response, Kinder Morgan contended that it had maintained, and would continue to\nmaintain, adequate firefighting equipment at each pump station and breakout tank area.\nSpecifically, the company stated that it had fire protection plans in place for the breakout-tank\nfacilities in Edgar and Buffalo, and that it was in the process of developing such plans for its\nnon-tank facilities at the time of the OPS inspection. Kinder Morgan further stated that it had\ncompleted its non-tank facility fire protection plans, and that it planned to review those plans\nwith local firefighting officials in early 2011. The company also noted that it had provided a fire\ntraining session for local emergency response officials at the Edgar facility, that it had an\nongoing liaison program with local firefighting organizations, and that it would provide OPS\nwith records verifying the implementation of that program.\nI find that Respondent has taken some steps to ensure that adequate firefighting equipment is\nmaintained at its breakout tanks in Montana, but that these steps are inadequate to meet the\nrequirements of § 195.430. The OPS Violation Report noted that while Kinder Morgan had\ndeveloped fire protection plans for some of its tank facilities, the company had not properly\ndistributed those plans to the appropriate local authorities at the time of the inspection.\nMoreover, Respondent has not disputed the allegation that it did not have fire protection plans in\nplace for all of its non-tank facilities in Montana at that time, and that those plans were needed to\nmaintain adequate firefighting equipment at those facilities. Accordingly, after considering all of\nthe evidence, I find that Kinder Morgan violated § 195.430 by failing to maintain adequate\nfirefighting equipment at each pump station and breakout tank area.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(c), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion Control?\n(a) . . . .\n(c) Rectifiers and other devices. You must electrically check for\nproper performance each device in the first column at the frequency stated\nin the second column.\nDevice Check frequency\nRectifier …………………………..\nAt least six times each calendar year,\nbut with intervals not exceeding\n2½ months.\nReverse current switch.\nDiode.\nInterference bond whose failure\nwould jeopardize structural\nprotection.\nOther interference bond………….. At least once each calendar year, but\nwith intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths.\n\n\n\n5\nThe Notice alleged that Kinder Morgan violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(c) by failing to electrically\ncheck for proper performance an interference bond whose failure would jeopardize structural\nprotection, at least six time each calendar year but with intervals not exceeding 2½ months.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that the Express Pipeline had a galvanic anode at a test station\n(TS 12867+42) that appeared to be draining approximately 330 milliamps back to the\nYellowstone Pipeline (YPL) at the point where the two pipelines crossed.\nThe Notice further alleged that the Express Pipeline had picked up foreign current south of the\ntest station when it transected the zone of influence of the YPL foreign ground bed, and that the\ncurrent was then discharged through the galvanic anode. The Notice asserted that the anode was\nacting in the same manner as a critical bond and therefore had to be checked at least six times\neach calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 2½ months. The Notice alleged that Kinder\nMorgan had only checked this anode on an annual basis.\nIn its Response, Kinder Morgan contested the allegation that this foreign current drain was\nequivalent to a critical bond, but failed to present any evidence supporting its position. The\ncompany further indicated that it had nevertheless begun performing a bi-monthly check of the\ntest station in question. Accordingly, upon review of all of the evidence, I find that Kinder\nMorgan failed to electrically check for proper performance an interference bond whose failure\nwould jeopardize structural protection, at least six time each calendar year but with intervals not\nexceeding 2½ months.\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(b), which states:\n§ 195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Inhibitors. If you use corrosion inhibitors to mitigate internal\ncorrosion, you must—\n(1) Use inhibitors in sufficient quantity to protect the entire part of the\npipeline system that the inhibitors are designed to protect;\n(2) Use coupons or other monitoring equipment to determine the\neffectiveness of the inhibitors in mitigating internal corrosion; and\n(3) Examine the coupons or other monitoring equipment at least twice\neach calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 7½ months.\nThe Notice alleged that Kinder Morgan violated § 195.579(b)(3) by using corrosion inhibitors to\nmitigate internal corrosion, but without examining the coupons or other monitoring equipment at\nleast twice each calendar year at intervals not exceeding 7½ months. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Kinder Morgan had been treating its breakout tanks with biocides in an effort to\neliminate bacteria that could cause microbiologically-induced internal corrosion (MIC). The\nNotice alleged that testing had revealed high levels of MIC in the breakout tanks at the Buffalo\nStation in 2009, but that Kinder Morgan had not used coupons or other monitoring equipment to\nevaluate the effectiveness of the previously-administered inhibitors.\nIn its Response, Kinder Morgan provided a description of its internal corrosion control program\nand stated that the company has not installed corrosion coupons in the Express Pipeline because\n\n\n\n6\ncoupons had proven ineffective on the Platte Pipeline System, the 932-mile pipeline that\ninterconnects with the Express Pipeline at Casper, Wyoming. Kinder Morgan further stated that\nit had now installed ultrasonic probes on the Platte Pipeline System to monitor internal corrosion\nfeatures, but that no suitable candidates for that program have been identified on the Express\nPipeline. Finally, Kinder Morgan stated that it would install an online corrosion monitoring\nsystem on the Buffalo Station breakout tank pipelines on or before September 1, 2011, and that it\nwould monitor the equipment in that system at least twice each calendar year, but not to exceed\n7½ months, to comply with the requirements in § 195.579(b)(3).\nRespondent did not dispute the basic allegation that it had failed to monitor the effectiveness of\nthe biocide inhibitor treatments for the breakout tanks at the Buffalo Station. Accordingly, after\nconsidering all of the evidence, I find that Kinder Morgan violated § 195.579(b)(3) by using\ncorrosion inhibitors to mitigate internal corrosion without examining the coupons or other\nmonitoring equipment at least twice each calendar, but with intervals not exceeding 7½ months.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.404(a)(1)-(4), 195.428(a), 195.430, 195.573(c), and 195.579(b),\nrespectively. The allegation of violation for Item 2 has been withdrawn. 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.\nThe Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions to address some of\nthe cited violations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.404(a)(1)-(4) (Item 1), Respondent has\nrevised the alignment sheets for the Express Pipeline with current information to\ninclude new pump stations, breakout tanks, public road crossings, buried utilities,\nand foreign pipelines. Respondent has distributed current alignment sheets to all\nfield personnel who need those documents to operate and maintain the safety of\nthe Express Pipeline.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.573(c) (Item 5), Respondent has electrically\nchecked its TS 12867+42 foreign current drain and submitted its findings to\nPHMSA.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations.\nTherefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Items 1 and 5 are not included in this\nOrder.\n\n\n\n7\nAs for the remaining compliance terms, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and\n49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance\nwith the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.430 (Item 3), Respondent must liaison with\nall local firefighting organizations that would respond to a fire at any of its pump\nstations or breakout tank areas in Montana to ensure that all equipment and products\nneeded to fight a fire at these facilities are available to those local firefighting\norganizations. Those liaison activities must occur, any identified deficiencies\ncorrected, and evidence of adequate firefighting equipment being available at Kinder\nMorgan’s facilities must be supplied to PHMSA within 180 days of receipt of this\nFinal Order.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.579(b) (Item 7), Respondent must use\ncoupons or other monitoring equipment and examine such devices twice each\ncalendar year but not to exceed 7½ months to determine the effectiveness of the\ninhibitors being used at the Buffalo Station. Kinder Morgan must submit evidence to\nshow that coupons or other monitoring equipment have been installed at the Buffalo\nStation within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order.\n3. It is requested that Kinder Morgan maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with the fulfilling of this Compliance Order and submit\nthe total to Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA. The company should\nreport costs in two categories: 1) total costs associated with preparation/revision of\nplans, procedures, studies, and analyses; and 2) total costs associated with\nreplacements, additions, and other 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.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 4 and 6, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to\nbe warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.569 (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to examine exposed\nportions of its buried pipeline near Gilford, Montana, for evidence of external\ncorrosion or coating deterioration (i.e., a September 23, 2009 right-of-way activity\nreport indicated that a pipe at Station 1214+90 was exposed but not subject to\nadequate examination); and\n49 C.F.R. § 195.577(a) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to identify, test for,\nand minimize the effects of stray currents.\n\n\n\n8\nKinder Morgan presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited items. Accordingly, having considered such information, I find, pursuant to\n49 C.F.R. § 190.205, that probable violations of 49 C.F.R. § 195.569 (Notice Item 4) and\n49 C.F.R. § 195.577(a) (Notice Item 6) have occurred and Respondent is hereby advised to\ncorrect such conditions. In the event that OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a\nsubsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay, the terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":24065}