# EXPRESS HOLDINGS (USA), LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

520115005_closure letter_05302012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520115005/520115005_closure%20letter_05302012.pdf

520115005_closure letter_05302012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520115005/520115005_closure%20letter_05302012_text.pdf

520115005_FinalOrder_03232012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520115005/520115005_FinalOrder_03232012.pdf

520115005_FinalOrder_03232012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520115005/520115005_FinalOrder_03232012_text.pdf

520115005_NOPV PCO_02282011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520115005/520115005_NOPV%20PCO_02282011.pdf

520115005_NOPV PCO_02282011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520115005/520115005_NOPV%20PCO_02282011_text.pdf

520115005_Operator_Response_03292011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520115005/520115005_Operator_Response_03292011.pdf

520115005_closure letter_05302012_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
May 30, 2012
Mr. Dean D. Dick
Operations Director Southern Region
Kinder Morgan Pipelines (USA) Inc.
800 Werner Court, Suite 352
Casper, WY 82601
CPF 5-2011-5005
Dear Mr. Dick:
On March 23, 2012, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued Kinder Morgan Pipelines (USA) Inc. a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This
Order included a Compliance Order. Based on our review of the documentation you provided,
it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Chris Hoidal
Director, Western Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry
PHP-500 J. Davis (#128420)

520115005_FinalOrder_03232012_text.pdf

MAR 23 2012
Mr. Ian Anderson
President
Kinder Morgan Pipelines (USA), Inc.
5th Avenue SW
Suite 2700 - 300
Calgary, Canada
T2P – 5J2
Re: CPF No. 5-2011-5005
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Kinder Morgan Pipelines (USA), Inc.,
to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have
been completed, as determined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will
be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of
mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, OPS
Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS
Mr. Dean Dick, Operations Director, Kinder Morgan Pipelines (USA), Inc.
800 Werner Court, Suite 352, Casper, Wyoming 82601
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 Pipelines (USA), Inc., ) CPF No. 5-2011-5005
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On August 1 to 6, 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Kinder Morgan
Pipelines (USA), Inc. (Kinder Morgan or Respondent), in Wyoming and Montana. The
particular focus of the inspection was Kinder Morgan’s Express Pipeline, a 783-mile pipeline
that transports crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada, to Casper, Wyoming.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated February 28, 2011, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed
Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed
finding that Kinder Morgan had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and
proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The
Notice also proposed finding that Respondent had committed certain other probable violations of
49 C.F.R. Part 195 and warning Respondent to take appropriate corrective action or be subject to
future enforcement action.
Kinder Morgan responded to the Notice by letter dated March 29, 2011 (Response). The
company contested some of the allegations of violation and provided information concerning the
corrective actions it had taken. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived
its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
1 http://www.kindermorgan.com/business/canada/express_platte.cfm (last accessed Nov. 12, 2011).



2
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(1)-(4), which states:
§ 195.404 Maps and records.
(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its pipeline
systems that include at least the following information:
(1) Location and identification of the following pipeline facilities:
(i) Breakout tanks;
(ii) Pump stations;
(iii) Scraper and sphere facilities;
(iv) Pipeline valves;
(v) Facilities to which § 195.402(c)(9) applies;
(vi) Rights-of-way; and
(vii) Safety devices to which § 195.428 applies.
(2) All crossings of public roads, railroads, rivers, buried utilities, and
foreign pipelines.
(3) The maximum operating pressure of each pipeline.
(4) The diameter, grade, type, and nominal wall thickness of all pipe.
The Notice alleged that Kinder Morgan violated § 195.404(a)(1)-(4) by failing to maintain
current maps and record of its pipeline system. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent
had not updated its alignment sheets since 2003, and that field personnel were still using
alignment sheets dating from 1998.2
In its Response, Kinder Morgan stated that the company was in the process of updating its
alignment sheets at the time of the OPS inspection. Kinder Morgan further stated that it had
finished that project on November 1, 2010, and that it had provided the current alignment sheets
to all of its field personnel.
Respondent did not dispute the allegation that its alignment sheets were outdated at the time of
the OPS inspection. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent
violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(1)-(4) by failing to maintain current maps and records of its
pipeline system.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:
§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator
shall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar
year, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at
intervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year,
inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure
regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it
2 The Notice also alleged that Kinder Morgan had failed to make certain other records available, as required under
49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(1). As the allegation of violation in Item 1 relates solely to the maps and records
requirements in § 195.404, no further consideration will be given to Kinder Morgan’s compliance with the
requirements in § 195.402(c)(1).



3
is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate
from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service
in which it is used.
The Notice alleged that Kinder Morgan violated § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test the
pressure control equipment at the Wild Horse Pump Station, at intervals not exceeding 15
months but at least once each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the Wild Horse
Pump Station was located in Canada and operated by another Kinder Morgan subsidiary, yet it
provided the sole pressure and overpressure protection for that portion of the Express Pipeline
from the Canadian border to the Faulkners Coulee Pump Station. The Notice further alleged that
at the time of the OPS inspection, Kinder Morgan had no evidence showing that the pressure
control equipment at the Wild Horse Pump Station had been inspected and tested at intervals not
exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.
In its Response, Kinder Morgan stated that the pressure control equipment at the Wild Horse
Pump Station had been inspected and tested at the prescribed intervals. Kinder Morgan further
stated that the documentation from those inspections and tests was kept at its offices in Hardisty,
Alberta, Canada, but that such records could be accessed online by its U.S. personnel at any
time. Kinder Morgan also stated that it would provide those records to OPS.
OPS has received the inspection and testing records for the pressure control equipment at the
Wild Horse Pump Station, and is satisfied that the records show that the required tests and
inspections did occur at the prescribed intervals. Accordingly, after considering all of the
evidence, I am withdrawing this allegation of violation.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.430, which states:
§ 195.430 Firefighting equipment.
Each operator shall maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each
pump station and breakout tank area. The equipment must be—
(a) In proper operating condition at all times;
(b) Plainly marked so that its identity as firefighting equipment is
clear; and
(c) Located so that it is easily accessible during a fire.
The Notice alleged that Kinder Morgan violated § 195.430 by failing to maintain adequate
firefighting equipment at each pump station and breakout tank area. In particular, the Notice
alleged that Kinder Morgan had not distributed tactical firefighting “preplans” for its pump
stations and breakout tanks to local firefighting organizations within Montana. It stated that
these preplans were supposed to describe the equipment and products needed for fighting fires at
each Kinder Morgan facility. The Notice alleged that Kinder Morgan had indicated that it
planned to distribute the preplans and to coordinate with local firefighting organizations, but that
the company had not yet determined what fire equipment was needed at each pump station and
tank.



4
In its Response, Kinder Morgan contended that it had maintained, and would continue to
maintain, adequate firefighting equipment at each pump station and breakout tank area.
Specifically, the company stated that it had fire protection plans in place for the breakout-tank
facilities in Edgar and Buffalo, and that it was in the process of developing such plans for its
non-tank facilities at the time of the OPS inspection. Kinder Morgan further stated that it had
completed its non-tank facility fire protection plans, and that it planned to review those plans
with local firefighting officials in early 2011. The company also noted that it had provided a fire
training session for local emergency response officials at the Edgar facility, that it had an
ongoing liaison program with local firefighting organizations, and that it would provide OPS
with records verifying the implementation of that program.
I find that Respondent has taken some steps to ensure that adequate firefighting equipment is
maintained at its breakout tanks in Montana, but that these steps are inadequate to meet the
requirements of § 195.430. The OPS Violation Report noted that while Kinder Morgan had
developed fire protection plans for some of its tank facilities, the company had not properly
distributed those plans to the appropriate local authorities at the time of the inspection.
Moreover, Respondent has not disputed the allegation that it did not have fire protection plans in
place for all of its non-tank facilities in Montana at that time, and that those plans were needed to
maintain adequate firefighting equipment at those facilities. Accordingly, after considering all of
the evidence, I find that Kinder Morgan violated § 195.430 by failing to maintain adequate
firefighting equipment at each pump station and breakout tank area.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(c), which states, in
relevant part:
§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion Control?
(a) . . . .
(c) Rectifiers and other devices. You must electrically check for
proper performance each device in the first column at the frequency stated
in the second column.
Device Check frequency
Rectifier …………………………..
At least six times each calendar year,
but with intervals not exceeding
2½ months.
Reverse current switch.
Diode.
Interference bond whose failure
would jeopardize structural
protection.
Other interference bond………….. At least once each calendar year, but
with intervals not exceeding 15
months.



5
The Notice alleged that Kinder Morgan violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(c) by failing to electrically
check for proper performance an interference bond whose failure would jeopardize structural
protection, at least six time each calendar year but with intervals not exceeding 2½ months.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that the Express Pipeline had a galvanic anode at a test station
(TS 12867+42) that appeared to be draining approximately 330 milliamps back to the
Yellowstone Pipeline (YPL) at the point where the two pipelines crossed.
The Notice further alleged that the Express Pipeline had picked up foreign current south of the
test station when it transected the zone of influence of the YPL foreign ground bed, and that the
current was then discharged through the galvanic anode. The Notice asserted that the anode was
acting in the same manner as a critical bond and therefore had to be checked at least six times
each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 2½ months. The Notice alleged that Kinder
Morgan had only checked this anode on an annual basis.
In its Response, Kinder Morgan contested the allegation that this foreign current drain was
equivalent to a critical bond, but failed to present any evidence supporting its position. The
company further indicated that it had nevertheless begun performing a bi-monthly check of the
test station in question. Accordingly, upon review of all of the evidence, I find that Kinder
Morgan failed to electrically check for proper performance an interference bond whose failure
would jeopardize structural protection, at least six time each calendar year but with intervals not
exceeding 2½ months.
Item 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(b), which states:
§ 195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?
(a) . . . .
(b) Inhibitors. If you use corrosion inhibitors to mitigate internal
corrosion, you must—
(1) Use inhibitors in sufficient quantity to protect the entire part of the
pipeline system that the inhibitors are designed to protect;
(2) Use coupons or other monitoring equipment to determine the
effectiveness of the inhibitors in mitigating internal corrosion; and
(3) Examine the coupons or other monitoring equipment at least twice
each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 7½ months.
The Notice alleged that Kinder Morgan violated § 195.579(b)(3) by using corrosion inhibitors to
mitigate internal corrosion, but without examining the coupons or other monitoring equipment at
least twice each calendar year at intervals not exceeding 7½ months. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that Kinder Morgan had been treating its breakout tanks with biocides in an effort to
eliminate bacteria that could cause microbiologically-induced internal corrosion (MIC). The
Notice alleged that testing had revealed high levels of MIC in the breakout tanks at the Buffalo
Station in 2009, but that Kinder Morgan had not used coupons or other monitoring equipment to
evaluate the effectiveness of the previously-administered inhibitors.
In its Response, Kinder Morgan provided a description of its internal corrosion control program
and stated that the company has not installed corrosion coupons in the Express Pipeline because



6
coupons had proven ineffective on the Platte Pipeline System, the 932-mile pipeline that
interconnects with the Express Pipeline at Casper, Wyoming. Kinder Morgan further stated that
it had now installed ultrasonic probes on the Platte Pipeline System to monitor internal corrosion
features, but that no suitable candidates for that program have been identified on the Express
Pipeline. Finally, Kinder Morgan stated that it would install an online corrosion monitoring
system on the Buffalo Station breakout tank pipelines on or before September 1, 2011, and that it
would monitor the equipment in that system at least twice each calendar year, but not to exceed
7½ months, to comply with the requirements in § 195.579(b)(3).
Respondent did not dispute the basic allegation that it had failed to monitor the effectiveness of
the biocide inhibitor treatments for the breakout tanks at the Buffalo Station. Accordingly, after
considering all of the evidence, I find that Kinder Morgan violated § 195.579(b)(3) by using
corrosion inhibitors to mitigate internal corrosion without examining the coupons or other
monitoring equipment at least twice each calendar, but with intervals not exceeding 7½ months.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.404(a)(1)-(4), 195.428(a), 195.430, 195.573(c), and 195.579(b),
respectively. The allegation of violation for Item 2 has been withdrawn. 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.
The Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions to address some of
the cited violations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 195.404(a)(1)-(4) (Item 1), Respondent has
revised the alignment sheets for the Express Pipeline with current information to
include new pump stations, breakout tanks, public road crossings, buried utilities,
and foreign pipelines. Respondent has distributed current alignment sheets to all
field personnel who need those documents to operate and maintain the safety of
the Express Pipeline.
2. With respect to the violation of § 195.573(c) (Item 5), Respondent has electrically
checked its TS 12867+42 foreign current drain and submitted its findings to
PHMSA.
Accordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations.
Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Items 1 and 5 are not included in this
Order.



7
As for the remaining compliance terms, 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 § 195.430 (Item 3), Respondent must liaison with
all local firefighting organizations that would respond to a fire at any of its pump
stations or breakout tank areas in Montana to ensure that all equipment and products
needed to fight a fire at these facilities are available to those local firefighting
organizations. Those liaison activities must occur, any identified deficiencies
corrected, and evidence of adequate firefighting equipment being available at Kinder
Morgan’s facilities must be supplied to PHMSA within 180 days of receipt of this
Final Order.
2. With respect to the violation of § 195.579(b) (Item 7), Respondent must use
coupons or other monitoring equipment and examine such devices twice each
calendar year but not to exceed 7½ months to determine the effectiveness of the
inhibitors being used at the Buffalo Station. Kinder Morgan must submit evidence to
show that coupons or other monitoring equipment have been installed at the Buffalo
Station within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order.
3. It is requested that Kinder Morgan maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with the fulfilling of this Compliance Order and submit
the total to Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA. The company should
report costs in two categories: 1) total costs associated with preparation/revision of
plans, procedures, studies, and analyses; and 2) total costs 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.
WARNING ITEMS
With respect to Items 4 and 6, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did not
propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to
be warning items. The warnings were for:
49 C.F.R. § 195.569 (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to examine exposed
portions of its buried pipeline near Gilford, Montana, for evidence of external
corrosion or coating deterioration (i.e., a September 23, 2009 right-of-way activity
report indicated that a pipe at Station 1214+90 was exposed but not subject to
adequate examination); and
49 C.F.R. § 195.577(a) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to identify, test for,
and minimize the effects of stray currents.



8
Kinder Morgan presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to
address the cited items. Accordingly, having considered such information, I find, pursuant to
49 C.F.R. § 190.205, that probable violations of 49 C.F.R. § 195.569 (Notice Item 4) and
49 C.F.R. § 195.577(a) (Notice Item 6) have occurred and Respondent is hereby advised to
correct such conditions. In the event that OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a
subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the
Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of
this Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline
Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC
20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA
will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by
the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other
requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a
stay, the terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
___________________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 24065