# KINDER MORGAN CO2 CO. LLC — Notice of Amendment

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 52021002NOA
- **title:** KINDER MORGAN CO2 CO. LLC — Notice of Amendment
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2021-08-16
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.202, 195.204, 195.208, 195.216, 195.222(a), 195.234(a), 195.234(g), 195.404(c)(1).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52021002noa.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52021002noa.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52021002noa
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/52021002NOA
**body:**

Notice of Amendment involving KINDER MORGAN CO2 CO. LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.202,  195.204,  195.208,  195.216,  195.222(a),  195.234(a),  195.234(g),  195.404(c)(1). The case was opened on 2021-08-16 and is reported as closed as of 2023-06-29. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

52021002NOA_Closure Letter_06292023_(20-191754).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52021002NOA/52021002NOA_Closure%20Letter_06292023_(20-191754).pdf

52021002NOA_Closure Letter_06292023_(20-191754)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52021002NOA/52021002NOA_Closure%20Letter_06292023_(20-191754)_text.pdf

52021002NOA_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_03222023_(20-191754).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52021002NOA/52021002NOA_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_03222023_(20-191754).pdf

52021002NOA_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_03222023_(20-191754)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52021002NOA/52021002NOA_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_03222023_(20-191754)_text.pdf

52021002NOA_Notice of Amendment_08162021_(20-191754).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52021002NOA/52021002NOA_Notice%20of%20Amendment_08162021_(20-191754).pdf

52021002NOA_Notice of Amendment_08162021_(20-191754)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52021002NOA/52021002NOA_Notice%20of%20Amendment_08162021_(20-191754)_text.pdf

52021002NOA_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_11142022_(20-191754).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52021002NOA/52021002NOA_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_11142022_(20-191754).pdf

52021002NOA_Operator Post-Hearing Submission_04042022_(20-191754).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52021002NOA/52021002NOA_Operator%20Post-Hearing%20Submission_04042022_(20-191754).pdf

52021002NOA_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing and Statement of Issues_09142021_(20-191754).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52021002NOA/52021002NOA_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing%20and%20Statement%20of%20Issues_09142021_(20-191754).pdf

52021002NOA_Order Directing Amendment_10252022_(20-191754).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52021002NOA/52021002NOA_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_10252022_(20-191754).pdf

52021002NOA_Order Directing Amendment_10252022_(20-191754)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52021002NOA/52021002NOA_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_10252022_(20-191754)_text.pdf

52021002NOA_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_01102022_(20-191754).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52021002NOA/52021002NOA_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_01102022_(20-191754).pdf

52021002NOA_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_01102022_(20-191754)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52021002NOA/52021002NOA_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_01102022_(20-191754)_text.pdf

52021002NOA_PHC Hearing Scheduled_10192021_(20-191754).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52021002NOA/52021002NOA_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_10192021_(20-191754).pdf

52021002NOA_PHC Hearing Scheduled_10192021_(20-191754)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52021002NOA/52021002NOA_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_10192021_(20-191754)_text.pdf

52021002NOA_Notice of Amendment_08162021_(20-191754)_text.pdf

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT
VIA E-MAIL TO MR. JESSE ARENIVAS
August 16, 2021
Mr. Jesse Arenivas
President, CO2 Pipelines
Kinder Morgan CO2
1001 Louisiana St, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77002
CPF 5-2021-002-NOA
Dear Mr. Arenivas:
From September 28 through October 2, 2020, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code
(U.S.C.), inspected Kinder Morgan CO2’s (Kinder Morgan) welding, certification, inspection,
and operator qualification procedures.
On the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within
Kinder Morgan’s plans or procedures, as described below:
1. § 195.202 - Compliance with specifications or standards.
Each pipeline system must be constructed in accordance with comprehensive
written specifications or standards that are consistent with the requirements of this
part.
§ 195.204 – Inspection - general.
Inspection must be provided to ensure that the installation of pipe or pipeline
systems is in accordance with the requirements of this subpart. Any operator



personnel used to perform the inspection must be trained and qualified in the phase
of construction to be inspected. An operator must not use operator personnel to
perform a required inspection if the operator personnel performed the construction
task requiring inspection. Nothing in this section prohibits the operator from
inspecting construction tasks with operator personnel who are involved in other
construction tasks.
Kinder Morgan failed to have a procedure specifying what training and qualifications are
required by inspectors for the specific phase of construction they are inspecting (i.e. welding
inspectors or coating inspectors), pursuant to § 195.204.
Kinder Morgan does have a document that they claim they are using to evaluate training and
qualifications, but its Operations & Maintenance manual neither explains the procedure nor
identifies where the document can be found.
Kinder Morgan must develop a procedure for determining what training and qualifications are
needed in the phase of construction to be inspected, including what documentation or records
will be maintained.
2. § 195.208 - Welding of supports and braces.
Supports or braces may not be welded directly to pipe that will be operated at a
pressure of more than 100 p.s.i. (689 kPa) gage.
Kinder Morgan does not have a procedure for welding supports directly to the pipeline or a
statement that prohibits supports being welded directly to the pipeline.
Kinder Morgan must develop a procedure for supports or braces welded directly to the pipe
operating at a pressure below 100 psi, and a statement prohibiting supports or braces welded
directly to the pipe that will be operated at a pressure of more than 100 psi.
3. § 195.222 - Welders and welding operators: Qualification of welders and welding
operators.
(a) Each welder or welding operator must be qualified in accordance with section 6,
section 12, Appendix A or Appendix B of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference,
see § 195.3), or section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME
BPVC), (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) except that a welder or welding
operator qualified under an earlier edition than listed in § 195.3, may weld but may
not requalify under that earlier edition.
Kinder Morgan does have a procedure for welder qualifications located in its Liquid Operations
& Maintenance Manual (L O&M), Procedure #L O&M 401 – Welder Qualification and Testing,
Revised March 11, 2020.
2



In the procedure, Section 5 – Core Information and Requirements, Subsection 5.1 – Qualification
Requirements, it states, “[a] welder shall meet one of these eligibility requirements to be tested
as a welder: a. The person has passed a similar test recently.” However, the procedure fails to
define what “similar” or “recently” means.
Section 5, Subsection 5.8 – Retesting Due to Conditions Beyond the Welder’s Control is
confusing and fails to follow the re-testing flowchart found in Attachment 3 – Testing Procedure
Chart, found on page 13/13 of the procedure. Attachment 3 – Testing Procedure Chart is
confusing. The flow chart has circular paths and fails to clearly show the process of how welders
are qualified.
Finally, the procedure fails to identify or mention the American Petroleum Institute’s (API)
Standard 1104 – Welding of Pipelines and Related Facilities, and the appropriate sections of
1104 that are incorporated by reference for qualifying welders.
Kinder Morgan must revise its procedure to clearly identify the process used to qualify all
welders working on Kinder Morgan assets.
4. § 195.234 - Welds: Nondestructive testing.
(a) A weld may be nondestructively tested by any process that will clearly indicate
any defects that may affect the integrity of the weld.
Kinder Morgan’s Liquid Operations & Maintenance Manual, Procedure 454 – Non-Destructive
Requirements, Revised August 18, 2018, Section 2.0 – Core Information and Requirements,
Subsection 2.2 – Codes and Standards (Page 2/9) incorrectly identifies and implies multiple
“approved DOT” procedures and/or standards which are not Incorporated by Reference (IBR) in
the applicable Pipeline Safety Regulations.
Specifically, Subsection 2.2 states: “NDT testing shall conform to, or exceed requirements of,
the following codes and standards, as applicable:”
Item D - ASME Section V - Nondestructive Examination, most recent DOT-approved edition -
This section is not IBR and the standard being used isn't clear.
Item G - ASTM E709 - Standard Recommended Practice for Magnetic Particle, most recent
DOT-approved edition - This standard is not IBR.
Item H - ASTM E165 - Standard Practice for Liquid Penetrate Inspection Method, most recent
DOT-approved edition - This standard is not IBR.
Item I - ASTM E142 - Standard Method for Controlling Quality of Radiographic Testing, most
recent DOT-approved edition - This standard is not IBR.
Item J - ASTM E1444-01: Standard Practice for Magnetic Particle Examination, most recent
edition.
3



Additionally, the Procedure's Codes and Standards section mentions most recently approved
DOT editions for Items D, G, H, and I, however, PHMSA does not Incorporate by Reference
these mentioned standards.
Procedure 454 - Section 2.4 Magnetic Particle Test Method does not mention any acceptable
standards or explicitly state that magnetic particle testing must meet Section 9.4.2 of API 1104
for acceptability.
Kinder Morgan must revise its Non-Destructive Requirements Procedure to clearly state the
correct acceptable standards that will be used for nondestructive testing.
5. § 195.234 - Welds: Nondestructive testing.
(a) …
(g) At pipeline tie-ins, including tie-ins of replacement sections, 100 percent of the
girth welds must be nondestructively tested.
Kinder Morgan’s Liquid Operations & Maintenance Manual (L O&M), Procedure 406 – Weld
Inspection and Testing, Revised April 8, 2020, Section 3.2 – Non-Destructive Testing, Section
3.2.1 – Non-Destructive Testing in the United States mentions the requirements for § 195.234(d)
and (e) but fails to state or identify the requirements under § 195.234 (g) for tie-ins. However,
this code requirement is found in Procedure 454 – Non-Destructive Requirements, Table 1.
Kinder Morgan must revise its procedure to include all the requirements found in § 195.234, and
correctly reference where the reader will find all non-destructive testing requirements for welds.
6. § 195.216 - Welding: Miter joints.
A miter joint is not permitted (not including deflections up to 3 degrees that are
caused by misalignment).
Kinder Morgan’s Liquid Operations & Maintenance Manual (L O&M), Procedure
456 – Welding and Fabrication, Revised April 8, 2020, Section 5 – Welding
Procedure – General, Item 5.18 is worded oddly and unclearly. The operator appears to be
allowing installation of miter joints under the pre-approval of a Kinder Morgan representative
but fails to identify a process for this approval.
Kinder Morgan must revise its procedure to clearly identify a process for allowing installation of
miter joints and the procedure for installation, or revise the procedure to state Kinder Morgan
prohibits the use of miter joints.
7. § 195.404 - Maps and records.
(a) …
(c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the periods specified:
4



(1) The date, location, and description of each repair made to pipe shall be
maintained for the useful life of the pipe.
While reviewing project files for in-line inspection (ILI) repairs for sleeve installation and
project files for pipeline replacements, the files failed to clearly identify which contractor and/or
employee performed specific covered tasks. While operator qualification (OQ) records for
contractor and employees were provided in the project files, compliance could not be determined
due the records failing to indicate who performed each covered task.
Kinder Morgan must develop or identify a clear process that will document which qualified
personnel performs each covered task.
Response to this Notice
This Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206. 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. Be advised that all material you
submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you
believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5
U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of
the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an
explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment
under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
Following the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, revised
procedures, or a request for a hearing under §190.211. 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 an Order Directing Amendment. If your
plans or procedures are found inadequate as alleged in this Notice, you may be ordered to amend
your plans or procedures to correct the inadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.206). If you are not
contesting this Notice, we propose that you submit your amended procedures to my office within
60 days of receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good
cause. Once the inadequacies identified herein have been addressed in your amended
procedures, this enforcement action will be closed.
It is requested (not mandated) that Kinder Morgan CO2 maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment (preparation/revision of
plans, procedures) and submit the total to Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In correspondence concerning this matter,
please refer to CPF 5-2021-002-NOA and, for each document you submit, please provide a copy
5



in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Dustin Hubbard
Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings
cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry
PHP-500 D. Fehling (#20-191754)
6

52021002NOA_Closure Letter_06292023_(20-191754)_text.pdf

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO MR. DARRELL RICKETSON
June 29, 2023
Mr. Darrell Ricketson
Chief Operating Officer
Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LLC
1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000
Houston, Texas 77002
CPF 5-2021-002-NOA
Closure Letter
Dear Mr. Ricketson:
On October 25, 2022, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LLC, an Order Directing Amendment in the above-
referenced case. This Order included a requirement to amend your procedures. Based on our
review of the documentation you provided on May 3, 2023, 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,
Dustin Hubbard
Director, Western Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry
PHP-500 D. Fehling (#20-191754)
Jaime Hernandez, Director Engineering, Codes and Standards

52021002NOA_Order Directing Amendment_10252022_(20-191754)_text.pdf

October 25, 2022
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: darrell ricketson@kindermorgan.com
Mr. Darrell Ricketson
Chief Operating Officer
Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LLC
1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000
Houston, Texas 77002
Re: CPF No. 5-2021-002-NOA
Dear Mr. Ricketson:
Enclosed please find the Order Directing Amendment issued in the above-referenced case. It
makes findings of inadequate procedures, finds that certain amended procedures provided by
Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LLC are adequate, and specifies actions that need to be taken by
Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, LLC to address a remaining inadequacy in its written procedures
in accordance with the pipeline safety regulations. When the amendment of procedures has been
completed, as determined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be
closed. Service of the Order Directing Amendment by e-mail is effective upon the date of
transmission and acknowledgement of receipt 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 (Order Directing Amendment)
cc: Mr. Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Jaime Hernandez, Director, Engineering, Codes and Standards, Kinder Morgan,
jaime_hernandez@kindermorgan.com



Ms. Jessica Toll, Assistant General Counsel, Kinder Morgan, jessica_toll@kindermorgan.com
Ms. Annie Cook, Esq., Bracewell LLP, Counsel Kinder Morgan, annie.cook@bracewell.com
CONFIRMATION OF 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 CO2 Company, LLC, ) CPF No. 5-2021-002-NOA
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
ORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT
From September 28, 2020 through October 2, 2020, pursuant to Chapter 601 of title 49, United
States Code, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), inspected the written procedures for welding,
certification, inspection, and Operator Qualification (OQ) procedures of Kinder Morgan CO2
Company, LLC (KM CO2 or Respondent). KM CO2 is the largest transporter of carbon dioxide
in North America, transporting approximately 1.2 billion cubic feet per day of CO2 from its
source fields in Southwest Colorado to New Mexico and West Texas.
1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated August 16, 2021, a Notice of Amendment (Notice). The Notice
alleged seven instances of inadequacies in Respondent’s written operating and maintenance
procedures and proposed requiring KM CO2 to amend its procedures to comply with the
provisions of 49 C.F.R. Part 195.
KM CO2 responded to the Notice by letter dated September 14, 2021 (Response). KM CO2 did
not contest six of the seven alleged inadequacies and submitted revised procedures to address
these inadequacies. With respect to the seventh alleged inadequacy, Respondent contested the
allegation and requested a hearing. A hearing was subsequently held via videoconference on
March 3, 2022, before a Presiding Official from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA. At the
hearing, Respondent was represented by counsel. Respondent provided additional written
material prior to the hearing on February 21, 2022 (Pre-hearing submission) and following the
hearing on April 4, 2022 (Post-hearing submission). The Director submitted a post-hearing
recommendation on May 4, 2022 (Recommendation).
1 KM CO2 website, available at https://www.kindermorgan.com/Operations/CO2/Index (last accessed Aug. 31,
2022).



STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.206(a), a Regional Director begins a proceeding to determine
whether an operator’s plans or procedures required under parts 192, 193, 195, and 199 are
inadequate to assure safe operation of a pipeline facility by issuing a Notice of Amendment. The
Notice specifies the alleged inadequacies and the proposed revisions. After considering all
material presented by an operator in writing or at the hearing in response to a Notice of
Amendment, the Associate Administrator determines whether the plans or procedures are
inadequate as alleged and orders the required amendment if they are inadequate or withdraws the
Notice if they are not.
In determining the adequacy of an operator’s plans or procedures, the Associate Administrator
may consider: relevant available pipeline safety data; whether the plans or procedures are
appropriate for the particular type of pipeline transportation or facility and for the location of the
facility; the reasonableness of the plans or procedures; and the extent to which the plans or
procedures contribute to public safety, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.206.
2
FINDINGS OF INADEQUACY
The Notice alleged that Respondent’s written operating and maintenance procedures were
inadequate under 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were
inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.202 and 195.204, which state:
§ 195.202 Compliance with specifications or standards.
Each pipeline system must be constructed in accordance with
comprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with
the requirements of this part.
§ 195.204 Inspection - general.
Inspection must be provided to ensure that the installation of pipe or
pipeline systems is in accordance with the requirements of this subpart. Any
operator personnel used to perform the inspection must be trained and
qualified in the phase of construction to be inspected. An operator must not
use operator personnel to perform a required inspection if the operator
personnel performed the construction task requiring inspection. Nothing in
this section prohibits the operator from inspecting construction tasks with
operator personnel who are involved in other construction tasks.
The Notice alleged that KM CO2 did not have a procedure specifying what training and
qualifications are required by inspectors for the specific phase of construction they are
2 49 C.F.R. § 190.206 (b) and (c). Paragraph (c) provides that an order directing amendment of an operator’s plans
or procedures under paragraph (a) is in addition to, and may be used in conjunction with, other appropriate
enforcement actions prescribed in Part 190.



inspecting. In its Response, KM CO2 provided its amendments. The Director, Western Region,
reviewed the amended procedure and concluded that the inadequacies had been corrected.
Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s procedures were
inadequate, as alleged in the Notice, but have subsequently been adequately amended. Therefore,
no further action is necessary with regard to this Item.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were
inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.208, which states:
§ 195.208 Welding of supports and braces.
Supports or braces may not be welded directly to pipe that will be
operated at a pressure of more than 100 p.s.i. (689 kPa) gage.
The Notice alleged that KM CO2 did not have a procedure for welding supports directly to the
pipeline or a statement that prohibits supports being welded directly to the pipeline. In its
Response, KM CO2 provided its amendments. The Director, Western Region, reviewed the
amended procedure and concluded that the inadequacies had been corrected.
Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s procedures were
inadequate, as alleged in the Notice, but have subsequently been adequately amended. Therefore,
no further action is necessary with regard to this Item.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were
inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a), which states:
§ 195.222 Welders and welding operators: Qualification of welders and
welding operators.
(a) Each welder or welding operator must be qualified in accordance
with section 6, section 12, Appendix A or Appendix B of API Std 1104
(incorporated by reference, see § 195.3), or section IX of the ASME Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME BPVC), (incorporated by reference, see
§ 195.3) except that a welder or welding operator qualified under an earlier
edition than listed in § 195.3, may weld but may not requalify under that
earlier edition.
The Notice alleged that KM CO2’s procedures for welding qualifications did not clearly identify
the process used to qualify each welder. In its Response, KM CO2 provided its amendments.
The Director, Western Region, reviewed the amended procedure and concluded that the
inadequacies had been corrected.
Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s procedures were
inadequate, as alleged in the Notice, but have subsequently been adequately amended.
Therefore, no further action is necessary with regard to this Item.



Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were
inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.234(a), which states:
§ 195.234 Welds: Nondestructive testing.
(a) A weld may be nondestructively tested by any process that will
clearly indicate any defects that may affect the integrity of the weld.
The Notice alleged that KM CO2’s procedures for nondestructive testing did not accurately
identify the correct acceptance standards to be used in the testing. In its Response, KM CO2
provided its amendments. The Director, Western Region, reviewed the amended procedure and
concluded that the inadequacies had been corrected.
Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s procedures were
inadequate, as alleged in the Notice, but have subsequently been adequately amended. Therefore,
no further action is necessary with regard to this Item.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were
inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.234(g), which states:
§ 195.234 Welds: Nondestructive testing.
(a) …
(g) At pipeline tie-ins, including tie-ins of replacement sections, 100
percent of the girth welds must be nondestructively tested.
The Notice alleged that KM CO2’s procedures for nondestructive testing did not include
requirements for tie-ins in the section of the procedures where they should appear. In its
Response, KM CO2 provided its amendments. The Director, Western Region, reviewed the
amended procedure and concluded that the inadequacies had been corrected.
Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s procedures were
inadequate, as alleged in the Notice, but have subsequently been adequately amended. Therefore,
no further action is necessary with regard to this Item.
Item 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were
inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.216, which states:
§ 195.216 Welding: Miter joints.
A miter joint is not permitted (not including deflections up to 3 degrees
that are caused by misalignment).
The Notice alleged that KM CO2’s procedures for welding did not clearly indicate when the
installation of miter joints is restricted or prohibited. In its Response, KM CO2 provided its
amendments. The Director, Western Region, reviewed the amended procedure and concluded
that the inadequacies had been corrected.



Accordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I find that Respondent’s procedures were
inadequate, as alleged in the Notice, but have subsequently been adequately amended. Therefore,
no further action is necessary with regard to this Item.
Item 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s operations and maintenance procedures were
inadequate with regard to 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(1), which states:
§ 195.404 Maps and records.
(a)…
(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.
The Notice alleged that KM CO2’s did not have procedures for creating and maintaining records
indicating which contractor and/or employee performed certain tasks involved in pipeline
replacements and sleeve installations following in-line inspections. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that KM CO2 did not have procedures for maintaining records indicating which
contractor and/or employee performed “covered tasks” under the OQ regulations.
Section 195.404(c)(1) states that “the date, location, and description” of each repair must be
maintained in the operator’s records. At the hearing, OPS argued that while the regulations did
not expressly define the word “description,
” the plain meaning of the term is “the who, what,
when, where, and why” of the subject being be described and that the “who” had particular
relevance to this case.
3 OPS argued that since KM CO2’s procedures did not include recording
the name of the individual who performed the repair, the “who” was missing and therefore
Respondent did not comply with the requirement to fully describe the repair.4
KM CO2 strongly disagreed that the word “description” should be defined in the manner
suggested by OPS. Respondent pointed to a dictionary definition of this term as meaning “kind
or character” or “a statement or account giving the characteristics of someone or something.”5
Respondent believes that its interpretation is more consistent with this dictionary definition and
argued that the OPS explanation of how it was applying this term was exceedingly novel and
expansive.
6 KM CO2 stated that it believed OPS was attempting to impermissibly expand the
requirements of § 195.404(c)(1) without providing fair notice or due process and requested that
Item 7 be withdrawn.7
Having considered these arguments, I agree with Respondent that the language of the general
3 Recommendation, at 4.
4 Recommendation, at 6.
5 Description, Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, https://www merriam-webster.com/dictionary/description.
6 Post-hearing submission, at 2.
7 Id.



recordkeeping requirement in § 195.404(c)(1) does not specify that the word “description”
means that all records created and maintained by a pipeline operator must automatically include
the “who, what, when, where, and why” of any and all repairs. OPS could have included such
precision in § 195.404(c)(1) when it promulgated the regulation but did not do so. Accordingly,
this order does not apply such an automatic requirement to all recordkeeping generally done by
Respondent.
Turning to the specific part of the allegation in the Notice concerning the alleged failure to have
procedures for having records that indicate which contractor and/or employee performed pipeline
repair tasks which there is no dispute are “covered tasks” under the OQ regulations found in
subpart G of Part 195.
8 At the hearing, OPS pointed out that the OQ regulations in subpart G
include specific requirements that bear on the question of whether an operator’s record of a
pipeline repair that involved a covered task under the OQ regulations must include the
identification of the individual who performed the covered repair task. OPS argued that the OQ
requirements were relevant and that the recordkeeping requirements should be read in a wholistic
manner.
Respondent disagreed with OPS’ arguments concerning the relevance of the OQ regulations.
Respondent pointed out that the Notice itself did not cite the OQ regulations and noted that the
OQ regulations were put in place long after the general recordkeeping requirement in
§195.404(c)(1). Respondent argued that the general recordkeeping requirement in §
195.404(c)(1) should be viewed by itself without regard to the OQ regulations.
In evaluating these arguments, it must first be recognized that recordkeeping is not required
merely for the sake of creating documentation. The primary purpose of the recordkeeping
required by the regulations is to demonstrate compliance with the regulations and facilitate
oversight of personnel. As OPS correctly pointed out:
PHMSA has previously stated that “[m]aintaining complete and
accurate records is itself important to safety because, in the absence of
complete records, an operator’s managers cannot perform effective
oversight of personnel who perform pipeline maintenance.” In re Pacific
Operators Offshore, LLC, Final Order, 2010 WL 1323384, at *2 (Mar. 17,
2010) (emphasis added). If personnel are not identified on repair records,
then supervisors cannot track their performance to ensure repairs are made
safely.9
In assessing the relevance of the OQ regulations, it is helpful to understand the purpose and
intent of these regulations. PHMSA promulgated the OQ regulations in 1999 in order to ensure a
qualified workforce and reduce the probability and consequences of accidents caused by human
8 The term covered task is defined in § 195.501(b). Covered tasks are identified as such in the operator’s written
OQ program and include operations and maintenance tasks performed as a requirement of Part 195 and that affect
the operation or integrity of the pipeline.
9 Recommendation, at 6.



error. 64 Fed. Reg. 46853 (Aug. 27, 1999).10 Of particular relevance to this case, the OQ
regulations include a section on recordkeeping that reads as follows:
§ 195.507 Recordkeeping.
Each operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance
with this subpart.
(a) Qualification records shall include:
(1) Identification of qualified individual(s);
(2) Identification of the covered tasks the individual is qualified to
perform;
(3) Date(s) of current qualification; and
(4) Qualification method(s).
(b) Records supporting an individual's current qualification shall be
maintained while the individual is performing the covered task. Records of
prior qualification and records of individuals no longer performing covered
tasks shall be retained for a period of five years.
Notably, the first thing on the list of what must be included in the employee qualification records
in § 195.507(a)(1) is “Identification of the qualified individual(s).” The reason for this is
obvious, the name and qualifications need to be matched up with a field activity record such as a
covered repair task to determine if the qualifications were met. If the field record does not
identify the individual, it is not possible to then match it up with the qualifications of that
individual to ascertain whether or not the individual was qualified to perform that task. At their
core, the primary purpose of the OQ regulations is to ensure that the individual assigned by an
operator to perform a covered task was fully trained and qualified to perform that task. If a
review of the covered tasks performed on a given day or at a given project location does not
indicate which individuals performed one or more of the covered tasks, it is not possible to
determine if the individual was qualified to perform such task and not possible to determine
whether compliance with the OQ regulations was achieved. Such an outcome would negate the
core purpose and effect of the OQ regulations to ensure it can be verified that individuals
performing pipeline repair tasks are qualified to perform those tasks. Thus, while § 195.507 is
aimed at the qualification records and not the covered repair records directly, it serves to clarify
the content needed in the repair records to make the qualification records fulfill their function.
While Respondent is correct that the OQ regulations were promulgated long after the general
recordkeeping requirement in § 195.404(c)(1), that does not mean that they can be ignored. It is
well established that regulations, like statutes, must be construed wholistically and in a manner
that, where possible, gives effect to all of the provisions.11 Many of the pipeline safety
10 The Pipeline Safety Act states: “The operator of a pipeline facility shall ensure that employees who operate and
maintain the facility are qualified to operate and maintain the pipeline facilities.” 49 U.S.C. 60102(a)(3).
11 “As with statutes, regulations must be construed holistically.” See Am. Paper Inst., Inc. v. EPA, 996 F.2d 346,
356 n.10 (D.C. Cir. 1993); see also Carlson v. Postal Regulatory Comm’n, 938 F.3d 337, 349 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“[I]n
expounding a statute, we must not be guided by a single sentence ... but look to the provisions of the whole law.”)
(quoting Del. Dep't of Nat. Res. & Envtl. Control v. EPA, 895 F.3d 90, 97 (D.C. Cir. 2018); see also Black &
Decker Corp. v. Comm'r, 986 F.2d 60, 65 (4th Cir. 1993) (“We must read the body of regulations ... so as to give
effect, if possible, to all of its provisions.”)(internal citation omitted).



regulations in Part 195 were promulgated after the general recordkeeping regulation in §
195.404(c)(1), but that does not mean the appropriate records to demonstrate compliance with
these newer regulations need not be kept. Plainly, § 195.507 clarifies what the content of the
qualification and covered task records must include. When the Part 195 regulations are read
together and in a cohesive manner, it is clear that the records for a pipeline repair that is a
covered task under the OQ regulations must include the identification of the individual(s)
performing the covered task. I find that Respondent’s argument that the general recordkeeping
requirement must be read to the exclusion of later promulgated regulations such as the OQ
regulations, was unpersuasive.
With regard to the fair notice concern raised by Respondent, it should be noted that as discussed
above I did not apply any sweeping requirement that the “who” be included in all repair
recordkeeping generally done by operators and the relevance of the OQ regulations serves to
narrow the identification requirement to OQ covered repairs.
12 Moreover, the fact that § 195.507
appears prominently in the Part 195 regulations and OPS is not relying on some form of obscure
guidance belies any such concerns. While it may have been helpful if OPS had referenced §
195.507 in the Notice itself, the Notice was sufficient to inform Respondent that the records at
issue were for OQ covered repairs. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the remedy
sought by OPS is for Respondent to simply correct its recordkeeping procedures going forward
as opposed to imposing any penalty on Respondent.13
Finally, Respondent pointed to three other documents it maintained concerning repairs that it
believed painted an adequate picture of the repairs. The first is the Pipeline Inspection/Repair
Report (PIR). This fillable form includes information on when and where the repair was
completed, what repair activity was performed, and why it was needed. It does not record who
performed the repair. The second document Respondent provided is an Employee Sign-in Sheet,
a fillable form that records the names of individuals present at a work site and the times they
enter and leave the site. It does not record who performed specific repair activities. Finally,
Respondent submitted a Job Hazard Analysis Worksheet. This fillable document records the
sequence of basic job steps, potential hazards of each job step, and a plan of action to control or
eliminate the hazard(s).14 While Respondent is correct that the regulations do not require any
specific type of record or form be used, these documents did not serve to identify the individual
who performed a given covered repa
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 62374