{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120075003M","title":"KIANTONE PIPELINE CORP — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2007-12-04","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.452(b), 195.452(f), 195.452(g), 195.452(h).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120075003m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120075003m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120075003m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120075003M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving KIANTONE PIPELINE CORP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(b),  195.452(f),  195.452(g),  195.452(h). The case was opened on 2007-12-04 and is reported as closed as of 2009-12-17. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120075003M_Notice of Amendment_12042007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120075003M/120075003M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_12042007.pdf\n\n120075003m_notice of amendment_12042007_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120075003M/120075003m_notice%20of%20amendment_12042007_text.pdf\n\n120075003M_operator response_01022008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120075003M/120075003M_operator%20response_01022008.pdf\n\n120075003m_notice of amendment_12042007_text.pdf\n\n409 3rd Street, SW, Suite 300\nWeehrngton DC 20024\nU S Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials SafetY\nAdministration\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\nDecember 4, 2007\nMr Fred Martin\nVice President, Supply and Transportation\nUnited Refimng Company\nKiantone Pipehne Company\n15 Bradley Street\nP 0 Box 780\nWarren, PA 16365\nCPF I-2007-5003M\nDear Mr Martin\nOn August 7-9, 2007, representatives of the Pipelme and Hazardous Matenals Safety\nAdmimstration (PHMSA) and the State of New York as mterstate agent, pursuant to Chapter 601\nof 49 United States Code inspected Ktantone's (KPL) procedures for mtegnty management in\nBuffalo, New York\nOn the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent madequacies found witlun\nKtantone'3 plans or procedures, as descnbed below\n1. IM Plan Development in Framework Stage\ntt195. 452(b) What program and practices must operators use to manage pipeline\nintegrity? (5) Implement and foBow the program;\n\n\n\nt)195. 452(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An\nintegrity manageinent program begins with the initial framework. An operator\nmust continually change the program to reflect operating experience,\nconclusions drawn from results of the mtegrity assessments, and other\nmaintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation of consequences of a failure\non the high consequence area.\nThe Risk Analysis, Preventive & Mitigative Measures (including leak detection and\nEFRD evaluations), Contmual Evaluation and Assessment, and Program Evaluation\nporhons of the KPL IMP remain in the imtial framework/implementation phase In\naddition, portions of the KPL IMP were written at a descriptive level versus a\nworking level\nFor example, Ktantone's IMP Section 3 8 states \"There will be a review of the msk\nanalysis and threat identification for all hazardous hquid pipelines operated by\nKtantone unde~ CFR part /95 annually KPL and (URC) (Unt ted Refinery\nCompany' personnel will)ointly conduct the yearly review The review will include\nany assessment data gathered in the previous year, as well as any changes to the\npipehne system, or the environment surrounding it \" This statement provides no\nspecific direction for performance and documentation of the annual review to assure\nconsistent and quahty unplementation of this activity PHMSA encourages KPL to\nprovide or reference additional working level detail in the IMP\nILI Tool Tolerances/Uncertainty\nf195. 452 (f) An operator must include, at minimum, each of the following\nelements in its written integrity management program: (8) A process for review\nof integrity assessment results and information analysis by a person qualified to\nevaluate the results and mformatton (see paragraph (h)(2) of this section).\nt)195. 452 (h) (2) Discovery of a condition. Discovery of a condition occurs when\nan operator has adequate information about the condition to determine that the\ncondition presents a potential threat to the integrity of the pipeline. An operator\nmust promptly, but no later than 180 days after an integrity assessment, obtain\nsufficient information about a condition to make that determination, unless the\noperator can demonstrate that the 180-day period is impracticable.\nKPL does not directly apply tool uncertainty to ILI results when comparing to IM rule\npart H repair requirements durmg the discovery phase o f assessment review As\nindicated m FAQ 7 19, PHMSA does not specify a particular approach to tool\nuncertamty, but expects reasonable consideration of tool capabilities when comparing\nresults to rule criteria\nKPL initially indicated that the vendor report already mcorporates tool tolerance, so\nthere is no need to ad)ust In response to inspection team follow up to tins statement,\nKPL could not find a basis for this statement in the vendor report, which only\ncontiuned the vendor tool performance criteria (provided to the mspection team)\n\n\n\nFurther follow up indicated that the ILI vendor anomaly reporting is as-called by the\ntool and does not include tool tolerance consideration At the time of inspection, KPL\ndid not include tool tolerance when evaluating ILI assessment data\nWeighting of Risk Factors\njj195. 452(f) An operator must include, at minimum, each of the followmg\nelements m its written integrity management program: (3) An analysis that\nintegrates all available information about the integrity of the enure pipeline and\nthe consequences of a failure (see paragraph (g) of this section);\n5452(g) 8'hat is an information analysis? In periodically evaluating the integrity\nof each pipeline segment (paragraph (j) of this sechon), an operator must\nanalyze all available information about the mtegrity of the entire pipeline and\nthe consequences of a failure. This information includes. . . (4) Informahon about\nhow a fadure would affect the high consequence area, such as location of the\nwater mtake; jj195. 450 High consequence area means: (1) A commercially\nnavigable waterway. . . (2) A high population area. . . (3) An other populated\narea . . (4) An unusually sensitive area. . . j\nAlthough risk analysis results were not yet final at the time of inspection, KPL\nmdicated that estimated nsk of fnlure (ROF) values will include sigruficant\ncontribution from \"Impact on Business\" consequence factors Tlus is problematic\nwhen evaluating the risk to rule-defined high consequence areas\nThe apphcation of Impact on Busmess consequence factors that result in sigmficant\n\"nsk\" estimations is problematic when evaluahng the risk to rule-defined lugh\nconsequence areas As indicated in FAQ 8 18 \"If consequences considered in the nsk\nanalysis are expanded to include consequences related to operator business\nperformance, then the operator must provide assurance that this approach does not\nskew decisions away from protection of HCAs For example, consideration of\noperator business performance consequences should not result in pipehne segments\n\"\nwith high nsk to HCAs bemg given lower priority for tntegnty assessments than\nsegments with low risks to HCAs but higher business consequences\nClassification of Anomahes\ntj195. 452(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\nThe KPL process to classify anomalies and identify if in HCA-affecting pipehne\nsegments was not adequately defined and documented in the IMP During the\ninspection, several anomahes from a 2006 ILI assessment were initially identified to\nthe inspection team as \"180-day conditions \" Upon further investigation by the\ninspection team, these were determined to be m non HCA-affecting segments and\n\n\n\nwould have been \"60-day\" conditions (dent with metal loss on bottom of pipe) if they\nhad been in HCA-affecting portions of the pipehne\nIMP Section 4 03, Company Compliance (3 05 4), stated \"- Anomalies are identifie\nwith an integmty assessment (The integmty assessment of the Kiantone Pipeline will\nbe accomplished by running instrument internal inspection tools on a fiv-year\nmterval)\nThe data will be reviewed by URC Inspection and Engineenng Department personnel\nalong with Kiantone management as soon as possible upon receiptPom the vendor\nVendors are required to submit reports to KPL not later than 180 days from the pig\nrun Anomahes will be pnontized per Appendix A as immediate, 60-day, 180-day, or\nother with the repair response to fall within given specifics \"\nIMP Section 4 4, Discovery of a Condition, stated \"Discovery of a condition occurs\nwhen Kiantone has adequate mformation about the condition to determine that the\ncondition presents a potential threat to the integnty of the pipehne Kiantone will\npromptly, but no later than 180 days after an integmty assessment, obtain sufficient\nmformation about a condition to make that determination, unless Kiantone can\ndemonstrate that the 180-day penod is impracticable This determmation will be\nmade by the KPL manager or appropnate designee (e g URC Inspection Dept, URC\nEngineemng Dept, etc)\"\nRes onse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U S C $ 60108(a) and 49 C F R ) 190 237 Enclosed as\npart of tlus Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipehne Operators in\nComphance Proceedmgs Please refer to ttus document and note the response options Be\nadvised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is sublect to being\nmade pubhcly available If you beheve that any portion of your responsive material quahfies for\nconfidentia treannent under 5 U S C 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you beheve quahfy for\nconfidentia treatment redacted and an explanation of why you beheve the redacted information\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U S C 552(b) If you do not respond within 30 days\nof receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a wiuver of your nght to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authonzes the Associate Admimstrator for Pipehne Safety to find facts as alleged in\ntlus Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Fmal Order\n\n\n\nIf, afier opportunity for a heanng, your plans or procedures are found inadequate as alleged in\nthis Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans or procedures to correct the inadequacies\n(49 C F R $ 190 237) If you are not contesting this Notice, we propose that you submit your\namended procedures to my office within one hundred twenty (120) days of receipt of this Notice\nThis penod may be extended by wntten request for good cause Once the madequacies\nidentified herein have been addressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement action will\nbe closed\nIn correspondence concermng this matter, please refer to CPF I-2007-5003M and, for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible\nSincerely,\nByron E Coy, PE\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipehne and Hazardous Matenals Safety Admimstration\nEnclosure Response Options for Pipelme Operators in Compliance Proceedings","truncated":false,"body_characters":10832}