# NUSTAR TERMINALS OPERATIONS PARTNERSHIP L. P. — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 120115011
- **title:** NUSTAR TERMINALS OPERATIONS PARTNERSHIP L. P. — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2011-11-28
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.404(b)(1), 195.404(c)(3), 195.573(a)(1).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120115011.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120115011.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120115011
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120115011
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving NUSTAR TERMINALS OPERATIONS PARTNERSHIP L. P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.404(b)(1),  195.404(c)(3),  195.573(a)(1). The case was opened on 2011-11-28 and is reported as closed as of 2013-01-08. Proposed civil penalty: $85,600. Assessed civil penalty: $85,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

120115011_ NOPV-PCP_11282011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120115011/120115011_%20NOPV-PCP_11282011.pdf

120115011_ NOPV-PCP_11282011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120115011/120115011_%20NOPV-PCP_11282011_text.pdf

120115011_Final Order_12182012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120115011/120115011_Final%20Order_12182012.pdf

120115011_Final Order_12182012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120115011/120115011_Final%20Order_12182012_text.pdf

120115011_Operator Response to Notice_12292011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120115011/120115011_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_12292011.pdf

120115011_Final Order_12182012_text.pdf

DECEMBER 18, 2012
Mr. Curtis V. Anastasio
Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
NuStar Energy, LP
2330 N. Loop 1604 West
San Antonio, TX 78248
Re: CPF No. 1-2011-5011
Dear Mr. Anastasio:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation and assesses a civil penalty of $85,600. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the
Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment. 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. Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, OPS
Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS
Mr. Michael F. Pesch, Vice President, NuStar Terminals Operations Partnership, LP –
P.O. Box 781609, San Antonio, Texas, 78278
Mr. J. R. Bluntzer, Executive Vice President of Operations, NuStar Terminals Operations
Partnership, LP
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 )
)
NuStar Terminals Operations )
Partnership, LP, ) CPF No. 1-2011-5011
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
Between April 19 and 23, 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 NuStar Pipeline
Operating Partnership, LP (NuStar or Respondent), in Linden, New Jersey. NuStar is a
subsidiary of NuStar Energy, LP, which owns and operates 5,605 miles of refined product
pipelines, 2,000 miles of anhydrous ammonia pipelines, and 812 miles of crude oil pipelines
throughout the United States.
1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated November 28, 2011, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty
(Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that NuStar had committed various violations
of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $85,600 for the alleged
violations. The warning item required no further action but warned the operator to correct the
probable violation or face future potential enforcement action.
NuStar responded to the Notice by letter dated December 30, 2011 (Response). The company
contested some of the allegations of violation, provided an explanation of its actions, and
requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced. 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 nustarenergy.com/COMPANY/Pages/default.aspx (last accessed March 8, 2012).



2
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(b)(1), which states:
§ 195.404 Maps and records.
(a) ….
(b) Each operator shall maintain for at least 3 years daily operating
records that indicate--
(1) The discharge pressure at each pump station.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(b)(1) by failing to properly
maintain for at least three years daily operating records indicating the discharge pressure for each
pump station. Specifically, the Notice alleged that NuStar’s Pipeline Certificate forms had
incomplete or missing discharge pressure readings for the company’s Linden Terminal Station
from August 8, 2008, through March 10, 2010, a period of approximately 579 days.2
In response, NuStar acknowledged that certain Pipeline Certificate forms had missing or
incomplete data during the period in question.3 Respondent explained that the forms required
manifold pressures to be recorded on an hourly basis during intra-terminal transfers but that
PHMSA’s audit had revealed “this process was not always followed.”
NuStar explained that, historically, the Linden Terminal Station had not been considered a
“pipeline facility” but, rather, a marine terminal facility with intra-terminal piping. 4 The
company noted that prior to its acquisition of the facility, the previous owner/operator had never
considered the intra-terminal “Marine to Inland” pipelines as being subject to the pipeline safety
regulations. Respondent stated that it had recognized the potential applicability of PHMSA
regulations to the terminal and had employed internal and external regulatory expertise to assess
the situation. Respondent further noted that during a PHMSA construction inspection of one of
these lines (i.e., the Buckeye Transfer pipeline) in 2008, NuStar had inquired about the
applicability of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 to the intra-terminal pipelines but could not get a definitive
answer from the PHMSA inspector. Nevertheless, NuStar contended that in 2009 it made a
unilateral decision to operate and maintain all intra-terminal transfer lines at the terminal in
accordance with federal pipeline safety laws and regulations.
NuStar also contended that several of the lines at the facility were not subject to the requirements
of § 195.404(b)(1). First, it stated there were no discharge records for the Buckeye Transfer
pipeline because that line utilized a SCADA system which recorded pump discharge pressures
on a continuous basis and that such records had been provided to the PHMSA auditors, with no
concerns noted. Second, Respondent contended that its “LlN-STA-10” pipeline had not been
used in hazardous liquid service for over 15 years and that it was physically disconnected from
the hazardous liquid system; therefore, there were no pump discharge records to be maintained.
5
2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report, (November 28, 2011) (Violation Report) at 3, and Exhibit A-1.
3 Specifically, NuStar acknowledged that the forms for the Marine to Inland lines did not always reflect manifold
pressures on an hourly basis during intra-terminal transfers. Response at 2.
4 Response at 1.
5 Response at 2.



3
As for Respondent’s contention that the LlN-STA-10 line had been idle for years, I agree this
allegation of violation does not apply to inactive lines since they obviously do not have discharge
pressure records. As for the contention that the Buckeye Transfer line utilizes a SCADA system
that records discharge pressures on a continuous basis, PHMSA never intended for these records
to be included in the Notice.
In summary, NuStar has conceded that some of the company’s discharge pressure records
between 2008 and 2010 had missing and incomplete data. Accordingly, based upon a review of
all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(b)(1) by failing to
maintain for at least three years daily operating records indicating the discharge pressure of each
pump station at its Linden Terminal Station.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(3), which states:
§ 195.404 Maps and records.
(a) ….
(c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the periods
specified:
(1) ….
(3) A record of each inspection and test required by this subpart shall
be maintained for at least 2 years or until the next inspection or test is
performed, whichever is longer.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(3) by failing to maintain 51
right-of-way (ROW) inspection records for at least two years or until the next inspection or test
is performed, whichever is longer. Specifically, the Notice alleged that a single ROW inspection
record, dated November 10, 2009, was the only record provided to PHMSA for the period
extending from the second quarter of calendar year (CY) 2008 through the second quarter of CY
2010. The Notice alleged that a NuStar employee had confirmed that a single
November 10, 2009 ROW inspection record was the only documentation pertaining to the period
in question.6
In its Response, NuStar acknowledged that it did not have proper ROW inspection records for
46, as opposed to 51, inspections.7 The company stated that on November 10, 2009, NuStar
began documenting ROW inspections on a bi-weekly basis in its Linden Right of Way
Inspection Report (Linden Reports).8 NuStar also contended that the PHMSA auditor was
provided with the Linden Reports for the period running from November 10, 2009, through the
time of the audit. The company contended that it did provide four ROW inspection records for
inspections performed from November 10, 2009, to December 21, 2009.
6 Violation Report at 8.
7 Response at 3.
8 Response at Exhibit C.



4
A review of the evidence shows that Respondent did provide four ROW inspection records for
November 10, 2009, November 24, 2009, and December 2009, but that still does not account for
the vast bulk of the missing records. I find that the difference between the 51 ROW inspection
records cited in the Notice and the 46 acknowledged by the Respondent is immaterial to the
question of whether a violation occurred. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the
evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(3) by failing to maintain right-
of-way inspection records for at least two years.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(3), which states:
§ 195.404 Maps and records.
(a) ….
(c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the periods
specified:
(1) ….
(3) A record of each inspection and test required by this subpart shall
be maintained for at least 2 years or until the next inspection or test is
performed, whichever is longer.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(3) by failing to maintain for
at least two years inspection records for each mainline valve located at the Linden Terminal.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that NuStar failed to maintain for CYs 2008 and 2009 records for
17 mainline-valve inspections conducted at the Linden Terminal in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b).9 The Notice alleged that NuStar failed to provide valve inspection
records for the following valves:
Line Segment Valve Name
LIN-STA-10 1. MBV20
2. MBV30
3. MBV40
Buckeye Transfer 4. MBVM10
5. LTV20
6. MBVM20
7. LTV10
Marine to Inland #1 8. MBV10
9. MBV30
Marine to Inland #2 10. MBV10
11. MBV20
12. MBV30
Marine to Inland #3 13. MBV10
14. MBV20
15. MBV30
9 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) requires that each operator shall inspect, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months but at least
twice each calendar year, each mainline valve to determine that it is functioning properly.



5
Marine to Inland #4 16. MBV20
17. MBV30
In response, NuStar acknowledged that the company had failed to provide mainline-valve
inspection documentation for CYs 2008 and 2009 for the four “Marine to Inland” pipelines listed
above.10 However, NuStar maintained that the Buckeye Transfer pipeline did not begin
transporting hazardous liquids until January 2009 and therefore no mainline inspections were
required for this pipeline in 2008. Similarly, Respondent maintained that mainline valve
inspections were not required for the LIN-STA-10 pipeline for 2008 or 2009, as this pipeline was
idled and not transporting hazardous liquids.
As for the Buckeye Transfer pipeline, I agree. After a review of the NPMS data submitted by
NuStar, I find that mainline-valve inspections were not required for this line in 2008 and,
therefore, that no records needed to be maintained.
As for the LIN-STA-10 pipeline, I find that inspections of mainline valves were still required for
this line since it had not been formally abandoned. An abandoned pipeline must be physically
isolated from active pipelines, disconnected from all sources of liquids, purged of liquids, and
sealed at both ends; only pipelines permanently removed from service are exempt from Part 195
regulations.11 If a pipeline has not been abandoned according to §195.402(c)(10), then it is
considered active and the operator must comply with all requirements of Part 195. Accordingly,
based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated
49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(3) by failing to maintain for at least two years inspection records for each
mainline valve on its LIN-STA-10 pipeline and the four “Marine to Inland” pipelines.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1), which states:
§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine
whether cathodic protection required by this subpart complies with
§ 195.571:
(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each calendar
year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months. However, if tests at
those intervals are impractical for separately protected short sections of
bare or ineffectively coated pipelines, testing may be done at least once
every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.
10 Response at 4.
11 49 C.F.R. § 195.2, See also, In the Matter of Equistar Chemicals, LP, PHMSA Interp. No. 08-003 (Apr. 6, 2009)
(available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/interps) (“ceasing normal operation of a pipeline does not remove
the pipeline from PHMSA’s jurisdiction[;] [but] [i]f you have abandoned a Part 195 jurisdictional pipeline according
to § 195.402(c)(10) the requirements no longer apply[;] [however,] [t]he abandoned pipeline may not be returned to
service unless the pipeline was maintained according to Part 195 requirements while it was abandoned, or meets the
requirements of a newly designed and constructed pipeline.”)



6
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1) by failing to conduct
tests on cathodically protected (CP) pipelines at least once each calendar year, but with intervals
not exceeding 15 months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the company’s corrosion control
records showed an annual CP survey had been conducted on the pipeline system at the Linden
Terminal on January 10, 2008, but not again until September 11, 2009, a period exceeding the
required 15-month interval by six months. The Notice further alleged that NuStar personnel had
acknowledged that the tests had exceeded the required 15-month interval.
12
In response, Respondent acknowledged that it had exceeded the allowable interval between
annual cathodic protection surveys by approximately three months between 2008 and 2009.13
The primary purpose of the annual testing required by § 195.573(a)(1) is to provide an operator
with information about whether it is providing adequate cathodic protection to its pipelines. I
find that NuStar conducted tests on its CP pipelines January 10, 2008, but did not complete its
next tests until September 11, 2009, which exceeded the required 15-month interval by three
months and not the six months alleged in the Notice. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of
the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1) by failing to conduct
tests on CP pipelines at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15
months.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under
49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s
ability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing
business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without
any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.
The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $85,600 for the violations cited above.
As a preliminary matter, NuStar argued generally that several of the proposed penalties should
be reduced on account of ambiguity that had arisen regarding the applicability of Part 195 to the
Linden Terminal facility and because of the company’s good-faith efforts to comply with the
regulations. First, I would note that Respondent provided no evidence to support its contention
that a PHMSA inspector could not provide a definitive answer as to whether 49 C.F.R. Part 195
applied to the intra-terminal pipelines. Second, in situations where there is genuine uncertainty
regarding the applicability of Part 195 to an operator’s facilities, PHMSA provides a readily
12 Violation Report at 19, and Attachment A at 25.
13 Response at 5.



7
available means of obtaining information and advice about compliance with pipeline safety
regulations via PHMSA’s website, phone line, or email or a formal request for an interpretation
under 49 C.F.R. 190.11. There is no indication that NuStar availed itself any of these
opportunities.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,700 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.404(b)(1), for failing to maintain for at least three years daily operating records
indicating the discharge pressure for each pump station at the Linden Terminal Station. As
discussed above, NuStar acknowledged that its Pipeline Certificate forms had missing and
incomplete data but argued that the proposed penalty amount should be reduced for two reasons.
First, it argued that the company deserved credit for remedial actions it had taken following the
inspection. NuStar asserted that as part of its “dedication to continuous improvement,” it had
revised its Pipeline Certificate forms and procedures and re-trained its personnel.14 While such
actions are commendable, I see no reason to mitigate a proposed penalty for actions that any
reasonable and prudent operator would take in response to an allegation of violation.
Second, NuStar argued that the proposed penalty is inconsistent with penalties assessed against
other operators for similar violations. In particular, the company compared the present case to In
the Matter of ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company, CPF No. 5-2011-5014, where the operator
made no attempt to record discharge pressures, as the system was not even equipped with a
pressure-reading device at the discharge location.15 Respondent argued that despite these facts,
PHMSA chose not to levy any monetary penalty. NuStar requested that PHMSA forego the
proposed penalty in the instant case and reduce it to a warning item, to demonstrate a fairer and
more consistent enforcement policy.
I find such arguments unconvincing. As a general matter, PHMSA proposes and assesses civil
penalties on a case-by-case basis, depending upon the facts and circumstances presented in each
case and the application of the assessment criteria set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 190.225.
Respondent’s citation of another case that may be “similar” to the present case does not
acknowledge the reality that each case presents unique facts.
Moreover, I see no legal necessity to impose uniform penalties or remedies for similar violations.
The Supreme Court has held that absent a statutory provision to the contrary, “uniformity of
sanctions for similar violations” is not required.16 Neither the Pipeline Safety Laws nor the
implementing regulations require uniformity of penalties for similar violations. Not only is
PHMSA not legally required to adhere to identical remedies, it would be impracticable to
compare the factual circumstances of every past case when proposing or assessing penalties.17
14 Id.
15 In the Matter of ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company, CPF No. 5-2011-5014, December 19, 2011. PHMSA final
orders are accessible on the agency’s website at http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/Actions.
16 See Butz v. Glover Livestock Commission Company, Inc., 411 U.S. 182, 186-87 (1973).
17 In the Matter of ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, CPF No. 4-2004-5004, May 18 2009.



8
In the ConocoPhillips case cited by Respondent, the operator failed to have a device to record
the discharge pressure at the pump station; therefore, the compliance order required it to provide
one. In contrast, NuStar used Pipeline Certificate forms that required manifold pressures to be
recorded but the company failed to follow its own procedures requiring documentation of
discharge pressures. The differing facts and circumstances of the two cases raise different
gravity and risk considerations, and therefore resulted in different remedies being used to ensure
future compliance.
Lastly, the proposed penalty in the instant case is based partially on NuStar’s apparent awareness
of the regulatory requirement; the record shows that some of the records in question included
discharge pressure readings, while others did not. Finally, PHMSA also took into consideration
Respondent’s unique history of prior offenses.18
Accurate and complete discharge pressure readings are required to ensure safety by preventing
over-pressuring of the pipeline outside the facility, including locations where the line crosses
public roads. Given all of the penalty criteria outlined above, I find that the proposed penalty in
this case is reasonable and fully supported by the record. Accordingly, having reviewed the
record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $10,700 for
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(b)(1).
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $24,100 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(3), for failing to maintain 51 right-of-way inspection records for at least
two years. Respondent requested a reduction in the proposed civil penalty, suggesting that the
correct number of ROW inspections not properly documented was 46, rather than 51.
As discussed above, I found that the difference between the number of inadequate records
alleged in the Notice and the number acknowledged by NuStar was immaterial for purposes of
determining a violation. Likewise, I have reviewed the penalty calculation for this Item and
determined that even if the lower number of disputed records were used, it would not affect the
amount of the proposed penalty since the number of records involved was so large. In addition,
the duration of the violation was from April 19, 2008, until PHMSA’s inspection on
April 19, 2010, approximately 730 days. In terms of culpability, Respondent knew of its
responsibility to maintain the required records. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and
considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $24,100 for violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(3).
Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $24,100 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(3), for failing to maintain inspection records for each mainline valve
located at the Linden Terminal for at least two years. Respondent acknowledged that the
company failed to provide mainline valve inspection documentation for CYs 2008 and 2009 on
the “Marine to Inland” pipelines. As discussed above, I found that NuStar failed to maintain
proper records for these lines and its LIN-STA-10 pipeline, but not the Buckeye Transfer line.
18 In the Matter of NuStar Pipeline Operating Partnership, L.P., Final Order (CPF No. 3-2011-5005) (December
29, 2011); and NuStar Pipeline Operating Partnership, L.P., Final Order (CPF No. 3-2008-5013) (September 13,
2010).



9
The company argued that the proposed penalty should be reduced by 30 percent.19
I disagree. Given the number of missing inspection records and the number of valves that were
not inspected over a two-year period, even with credit for the documentation submitted, the
number of separate violations is so significant that no penalty reduction is warranted.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $24,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(3).
Item 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $26,700 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1), for failing to conduct tests on CP pipelines at least once each calendar
year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months. NuStar did not dispute the allegation of
violation but requested that PHMSA reconsider the magnitude of penalty given the company’s
dedication to “ensuring safety, regulatory compliance, and asset preservation through properly
functioning [CP] systems.” As an illustration, NuStar proffered that it had invested over
$150,000 in capital improvements to the terminal’s CP system over the past two years.
Respondent also stated that it already spent over five times the proposed penalty amount in
upgrades to its cathodic protection system.
20
While such measures may reflect a sincere and effective effort to improve safety, they do not
constitute a basis for mitigating a penalty imposed for multiple, significant safety violations that
occurred prior to an accident. PHMSA has indeed recognized a “good faith” defense for actions
voluntarily taken by an operator before a violation occurs to achieve regulatory compliance but
has not generally given credit for corrective actions taken in response to an accident or a pending
enforcement proceeding.21 In this case, I find that the actions taken by NuStar were largely ones
that any reasonable and prudent operator would have taken to protect its facilities and operating
personnel and do not constitute a basis for reducing a penalty.
Cathodic protection can limit external corrosion on buried pipelines through the application of
direct electric current to the metal of the pipeline. Protection is achieved when current flows to
the metal in an amount sufficient to prevent the loss of metal from the pipeline to the
surrounding environment. If insufficient current is provided, corrosion can result. Accurate and
timely CP information enables an operator to take action to remedy inadequate cathodic
protection. I find the nature, circumstances, and gravity of NuStar’s failure to conduct tests on
CP pipelines within the required interval support assessment of the proposed penalty.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $26,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1).
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $85,600.
19 Response at 4.
20 Response at 5.
21 E.g., In the Matter of AGL Resources, Inc., Final Order, CPF No. 2-2006-3003 (July 7, 2009); and Panhandle
Eastern Pipeline Company, Final Order, CPF No. 3-2008-1002 (June 17, 2011).



10
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The
Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.
Failure to pay the $85,600 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate
in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
WARNING ITEM
With respect to Item 4, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 195 but did not propose a
civil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning
item. The warning was for:
49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(3) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain
records for each inspection and test performed on firefighting equipment for at
least two years at the Linden Terminal. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
NuStar failed to provide any documentation verifying that a field storage tank
used to fight fires at the Linden Terminal was in proper operating condition.
NuStar presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to address
the cited item. If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent
may be subject to future enforcement action.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has the 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 the 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. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of
any civil penalty assessed but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order, including
any required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final
Order becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is
waived.



11
The terms and conditions of this Final Order [CPF No.: 1-2011-5011] are effective upon service
in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
___________________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

120115011_ NOPV-PCP_11282011_text.pdf

U.S. Department 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103
Of Transportation West Trenton, NJ 08628
Pipeline and 609.989.2171
Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
and
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
EXPRESS OVERNIGHT MAIL
November 28, 2011
J.R. Bluntzer, Sr.
Vice President of Operations
NuStar Terminals Operations Partnership, L.P.
2330 N. LOOP 1604 West
San Antonio, TX 78248
CPF 1-2011-5011
Dear Mr. Bluntzer,
Between April 19 and April 23, 2010, representatives from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected NuStar Terminals
Operations Partnership L.P.’s (NuStar) ST Linden Terminal in Linden, New Jersey.
As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety
Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violations are:
1. § 195.404 Maps and records.
(b) Each operator shall maintain for at least 3 years daily operating records that indicate-
(1) The discharge pressure at each pump station; and
NuStar failed to maintain daily operating records from 2008 through 2010 that indicated the discharge
pressure at each pump station during normal and abnormal operations at the Linden Terminal. A PHMSA
representative reviewed NuStar’s Pipeline Certificate form and identified missing or incomplete data.
NuStar’s Pipeline Certificate form is used to manually record the start time and intervals. NuStar failed to



CPF 1-2011-5011
record the discharge pressure at all the time intervals noted on the form on the Pipeline Certificate forms
dated 8/8/08, 5/18/09, 12/26/09, and 12/27/09, and 3/30/10.
It is important to note that upon further review, a PHMSA representative discovered that the discharge
pressure records were not only incomplete, but more importantly the chosen time interval for collecting
pressure data during normal and abnormal operation, did not provide for an adequate record of discharge
pressure.
2. §195.404 Maps and records
(c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the periods specified:
(3) A record of each inspection and test required by this subpart shall be maintained for at
least 2 years or until the next inspection or test is performed, whichever is longer.
NuStar failed to maintain fifty-one (51) right-of-way (ROW) inspection records for at least 2 years.
Pursuant to §195.412(a), each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times each
calendar year, inspect the surface condition on or adjacent to each pipeline right-of-way. A PHMSA
representative requested NuStar personnel to provide ROW records for the second quarter of the calendar
year 2008 through the second quarter of calendar year 2010. NuStar could only produce a single ROW
record for an inspection that took place on 11/10/2009.
3. §195.404 Maps and records
(c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the periods specified:
(3) A record of each inspection and test required by this subpart shall be maintained for at
least 2 years or until the next inspection or test is performed, whichever is longer.
NuStar failed to maintain inspection records for seventeen (17) mainline valves located at the Linden
Terminal for at least 2 years. Pursuant to §195.420(b), an operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7 ½
months but at least twice each calendar year inspect each mainline valve to determine that it is
functioning properly. Nustar personnel provided a list (below) of mainline valves; however, no records of
inspections conducted on those valves were available for calendar years 2008 and 2009.
Line Segment Valve Name
LIN-STA-10 1. MBV20
2. MBV30
3. MBV40
Buckeye Transfer 4. MBVM10
5. LTV20
6. MBVM20
7. LTV10
Marine to Inland #1 8. MBV10
9. MBV30
Marine to Inland #2 10. MBV10
11. MBV20
12. MBV30
Marine to Inland #3 13. MBV10
14. MBV20
15. MBV30
Marine to Inland #4 16. MBV20
17. MBV30
120115011_ NOPV-PCP_11282011 Page 2 of 4



CPF 1-2011-5011
4. §195.404 Maps and records
(c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the periods specified:
(3) A record of each inspection and test required by this subpart shall be maintained for at
least 2 years or until the next inspection or test is performed, whichever is longer.
NuStar failed to maintain records of inspections and tests performed on firefighting equipment at the
Linden Terminal for at least 2 years. 49 CFR Part 195.430(a) requires operators to ensure firefighting
equipment is in proper operating condition at all times. During the inspection, NuStar personnel stated
that a field storage tank located in the firehouse at the Linden Terminal was used for fighting fires.
NuStar personnel could not produce any records that verified the field storage tank at Linden Terminal
was in proper operating condition to fight fires.
5. §195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine whether cathodic protection
required by this subpart complies with 195.571:
(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each calendar year, but with
intervals not exceeding 15 months. However, if tests at those intervals are impractical for
separately protected short sections of bare or ineffectively coated pipelines, testing may be
done at least once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.
Nustar failed to conduct tests on cathodically protected pipeline at the required interval. At the time of
the inspection, NuStar provided corrosion control records that showed it conducted a cathodic protection
(CP) survey on its protected pipelines on 1/10/2008 and the next CP survey was conducted on 9/11/2009.
While NuStar completed the tests once each calendar year, the time frame between 1/10/2008 and
9/11/2009 exceeded the maximum of 15 months interval as prescribed in§195.573(a)(1). Additionally,
NuStar personnel confirmed that the corrosion control records documented the dates the CP surveys were
conducted. Therefore, the records verified that the pipeline system at Linden Terminal had in fact been
tested at an interval exceeding 15 months.
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 for each
violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of
violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation
involved in the above probable violation and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil
penalty of $85,600 as follows:
Item number PENALTY
1 $10,700
2 $24,100
3 $24,100
5 $26,700
120115011_ NOPV-PCP_11282011 Page 3 of 4



CPF 1-2011-5011
Warning Item
With respect to item 4, we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this
case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at
this time. We advise you to promptly correct these item(s). Be advised that failure to do so may result in
NuStar being subject to additional enforcement action.
Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in
Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. 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). If
you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to
contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to
find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.
Please send your correspondence to Byron Coy, Director, PHMSA Eastern Region, 820 Bear Tavern
Road, Suite 103, West Trenton, NJ 08628 and please refer to CPF 1-2011-5011. For each document you
s
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 40291