# MIPC LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 120155017
- **title:** MIPC LLC — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2015-09-29
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.432(a), 195.452(h)(2), 195.452(h)(4)(i).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120155017.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120155017.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120155017
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120155017
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving MIPC LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.432(a),  195.452(h)(2),  195.452(h)(4)(i). The case was opened on 2015-09-29 and is reported as closed as of 2017-04-06. Proposed civil penalty: $110,300. Assessed civil penalty: $108,900. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

120155017_Closure Letter_04062017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120155017/120155017_Closure%20Letter_04062017.pdf

120155017_Closure Letter_04062017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120155017/120155017_Closure%20Letter_04062017_text.pdf

120155017_Final Order_12022016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120155017/120155017_Final%20Order_12022016.pdf

120155017_Final Order_12022016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120155017/120155017_Final%20Order_12022016_text.pdf

120155017_NOPV_PCP_PCO_09292015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120155017/120155017_NOPV_PCP_PCO_09292015.pdf

120155017_NOPV_PCP_PCO_09292015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120155017/120155017_NOPV_PCP_PCO_09292015_text.pdf

120155017_Operator Response to Notice_10292015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120155017/120155017_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_10292015.pdf

120155017_Closure Letter_04062017_text.pdf

OVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY
April 6, 2017
Mr. Peter Pirog
Vice President & General Manager
MIPC, LLC
920 Cherry Tree Road
Aston, PA 19014
CPF 1-2015-5017
Dear Mr. Pirog:
On September 29, 2015, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to MIPC, LLC’s (MIPC) an NOPV and Proposed Compliance Order. A Final Order (FO)
was issued on December 2, 2016. The FO withdrew one of the allegations of violation, made other
findings of violation, assessed a reduced civil penalty of $108,900.00, and specified actions that
needed to be taken by MIPC to comply with the pipeline safety regulations.
MIPC paid the Civil Penalty on December 9, 2016; and addressed the compliance order in a letter
submitted to PHMSA on February 8, 2017. Based on our review of the documentation you
provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, 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,
Robert Burrough
Acting Director, Eastern Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

120155017_Final Order_12022016_text.pdf

December 2, 2016
Mr. Jeff Warmann
President and CEO
Monroe Energy, LLC
920 Cherry Tree Road
Aston, Pennsylvania 19014
Re: CPF No. 1-2015-5017
Dear Mr. Warmann:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary,
MIPC, LLC. It withdraws one of the allegations of violation, makes other findings of violation,
assesses a reduced civil penalty of $108,900, and specifies actions that need to be taken by MIPC
to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the
Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order
completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this enforcement action will be
closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing,
or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Acting Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Byron Coy, P.E., Director, Eastern Region, OPS
Mr. Peter Pirog, VP and General Manager, MIPC, LLC, 920 Cherry Tree Road, Aston,
Pennsylvania 19014
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 )
)
MIPC, LLC, ) CPF No. 1-2015-5017
a subsidiary of Monroe Energy, LLC, )
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From April 21st through April 25th, 2014, 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 Monroe
Interstate Pipeline Company, LLC (MIPC or Respondent) in Aston, Pennsylvania. MIPC, a
subsidiary of Monroe Energy, LLC, owns and operates a hazardous liquid storage and
distribution network that includes 51.25 miles of pipeline, two tank farms, one truck terminal and
25 breakout tanks with a total tankage capacity of nearly 2.8 million barrels.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated September 29, 2015, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and
Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice
proposed finding that MIPC had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.432 and 195.452 and proposed
assessing a civil penalty of $110,300 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed
ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct one of the alleged violations.
MIPC responded to the Notice by letter dated October 29, 2015 (Response). The company
contested only one of the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice,
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 See, About MIPC, http://www.monroepipeline.com/mipc/about-mipc/ (last visited August 22, 2016).



CPF No. 1-2015-5017
Page 2
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(i), which states,
in relevant part:
§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues.?...
(4) Special requirements for scheduling remediation—
(i) Immediate repair conditions. An operator’s evaluation and
remediation schedule must provide for immediate repair conditions. To
maintain safety, an operator must temporarily reduce operating pressure or
shut down the pipeline until the operator completes the repair of these
conditions. An operator must calculate the temporary reduction in operating
pressure using the formula in Section 451.6.2.2(b) of ANSI/ASME B31.4
(incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). An operator must treat the
following conditions as immediate repair conditions:…2
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(i) by failing to
temporarily reduce operating pressure or shut down the pipeline until the operator completes the
repair of immediate repair conditions within a High Consequence Area (HCA)3 or that could
affect a HCA. Specifically, the Notice alleged that at the time of the PHMSA inspection, MIPC
provided a copy of its integrity management plan and corresponding records, including the in-
line inspection (ILI) assessment data for Lines 208/308, completed on November 27, 2012, and
Line 408, completed on December 3, 2012. According to the Notice, three immediate repairs
were subsequently identified and repaired as follows:
(a) For Line 408, one immediate repair was discovered on August 27, 2013, and repaired two
days later on August 29, 2013.
2 The quoted language is the version of § 195.452(h)(4)(i) that was in effect at the time of the alleged violation.
The current version of 195.452(h)(4)(i), updated on March 11, 2015, reads as follows:
(i) Immediate repair conditions. An operator’s evaluation and remediation schedule
must provide for immediate repair conditions. To maintain safety, an operator must
temporarily reduce the operating pressure or shut down the pipeline until the operator
completes the repair of these conditions. An operator must calculate the temporary
reduction in operating pressure using the formulas referenced in paragraph (h)(4)(i)(B) of
this section. If no suitable remaining strength calculation method can be identified, an
operator must implement a minimum 20 percent or greater operating pressure reduction,
based on actual operating pressure for two months prior to the date of inspection, until the
anomaly is repaired. An operator must treat the following conditions as immediate repair
conditions:…
3 Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. 195.450, a “High Consequence Area” means:
(1) A commercially navigable waterway, which means a waterway where a substantial
likelihood of commercial navigation exists;
(2) A high population area, which means an urbanized area, as defined and delineated
by the Census Bureau, that contains 50,000 or more people and has a population density of
at least 1,000 people per square mile;
(3) A other populated area, which means a place, as defined and delineated by the
Census Bureau that contains a concentrated population, such as an incorporated or
unincorporated city, town, village, or other designated residential or commercial area; or
(4) An unusually sensitive area, as defined in § 195.6.



CPF No. 1-2015-5017
Page 3
(b) For Lines 208/308, two immediate repairs were identified on September 30, 2013. Defect
number 38289 was repaired seven days later, on October 7, 2013, and defect number
112749 was repaired nine days later, on October 9, 2013.
In its Response, MIPC contested Item 1(a), stating that Line 408 was idle at the time of
discovery of the condition on August 27, 2013, due to scheduled downtime. The line was
repaired two days later on August 29, 2013, with no pressure reduction, and was restarted as
planned on August 30, 2013. To support its argument, MIPC provided the pressure trend data
for Line 408, covering the period from August 26, 2013, through August 30, 2013, as
documentation that the pipeline was in fact idle when the immediate-repair condition was
identified and repaired. MIPC did not contest Item 1(b) relating to Lines 208/308.
Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence and the recommendation of the Eastern
Region, OPS, I hereby withdraw Item 1(a). As for Item 1(b), I find that Respondent violated 49
C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(i) by failing to temporarily reduce operating pressure or shut down Lines
208/308 until the operator completed the repairs of the two identified immediate repair
conditions.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(2), which states:
§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?—
(1) General. An operator must take prompt action to address all
anomalous conditions the operator discovers through the integrity
assessment or information analysis. In addressing all conditions, an operator
must evaluate all anomalous conditions and remediate those that could
reduce a pipeline’s integrity. . .
(2) Discovery of condition. Discovery of a condition occurs when an
operator has adequate information about the condition to determine that the
condition presents a potential threat to the integrity of the pipeline. An
operator must promptly, but no later than 180 days after an integrity
assessment, obtain sufficient information about a condition to make that
determination, unless the operator can demonstrate that the 180-day period
is impracticable.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(2) by failing to promptly
obtain sufficient information about a condition to make a determination whether it presented a
threat to the integrity of the pipeline within an HCA or in an area that could affect an HCA.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that the PHMSA inspector reviewed MIPC’s integrity
management plan and corresponding records, including a handwritten list of pipelines showing
when the ILI tool runs had been completed for Lines 208/308 and 408, which were November
27, 2012 and December 3, 2012, respectively.
In addition, the Notice alleged that MIPC provided PHMSA with two emails from the ILI
contractor indicating when discovery of the anomalies was made. In these emails, the ILI
contractor interpreted the data from the ILI tool runs. One email for Line 408 was dated August



CPF No. 1-2015-5017
Page 4
27, 2013, and the second email for Lines 208/308 was dated September 30, 2013. MIPC’s
Maintenance Lead stated that these emails were considered to be the company’s official
discovery of repair conditions for Lines 208/308 and 408.
Based on this information, the discovery of the anomalies for Line 408 occurred 267 days after
the ILI tool run and for Lines 208/308 occurred 307 days after the ILI tool run. As such,
Respondent exceeded the 180-day maximum time period permitted under § 195.452(h)(2) to
determine whether the anomalies presented a potential integrity threat.
In its Response, MIPC did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a
review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(2) by
failing to promptly obtain sufficient information about a condition to make a determination
whether it presented a threat to the integrity of Lines 208/308 and 408.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(a), which states:
§ 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.
(a) Except for breakout tanks inspected under paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section, each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at
least once each calendar year, inspect each in-service breakout tank.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(a) by failing to inspect each in-
service breakout tank at intervals not exceeding 15 months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
the PHMSA inspector reviewed the procedures and records related to the inspection of in-service
breakout tanks, including F-37: Aboveground Tanks (In-Service), in MIPC’s operations and
maintenance manual. In particular, Section 2 of that procedure instructed Respondent to use the
company’s Form A (Annual Tank Inspection Form) to record the information from the annual
tank inspection.
According to the Notice, the PHMSA inspector reviewed the annual tank inspection forms from
2012 and 2013 for 12 breakout tanks. Upon review, the PHMSA inspector noted that all 12
tanks were inspected on March 15, 2012; however, none were subsequently inspected until
September 23, 2013. Based on this information, Respondent allegedly exceeded the 15-month
inspection interval requirement of § 195.432(a), as all the 2013 inspections were due to occur no
later than June 15, 2013.
In its Response, MIPC did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a
review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(a) by failing to
inspect 12 of its in-service breakout tanks at an interval not exceeding 15 months.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.



CPF No. 1-2015-5017
Page 5
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.4 The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $110,300 for the
violations cited above.
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; 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.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $46,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.452(h)(4)(i), for failing to temporarily reduce operating pressure or shut down the pipeline
until MIPC had completed the repair of immediate-repair conditions. Respondent did not contest
this allegation of violation for Lines 208/308 (Item 1(b)), but did contest it for Line 408 (Item
1(a)). As discussed above, I found that there was insufficient evidence to find that MIPC
violated § 195.452(h)(4)(i) for the anomalies discovered on Line 408 because the line was idle at
the time. Therefore, the penalty for Item 1 should be reduced accordingly.
I have reviewed the assessment criteria and the penalty that was initially proposed for this Item.
While withdrawal of Item 1(a) does reduce the number of instances of violation, it does not
proportionately reduce the gravity of the overall Item, which was based largely on the significant
threat posed by the prolonged operation of Lines 208/308 in a high-risk area without being
repaired or the operating pressure being reduced. Also, Respondent provided no credible
justification for its failure to respond promptly to this known integrity threat. Therefore, after
reviewing Respondent’s arguments and the evidence of record, I assess Respondent a reduced
civil penalty of $44,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(i).
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $46,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.452(h)(2), for failing to promptly obtain sufficient information about a condition to make a
determination whether it presented a threat to the integrity of the pipeline within an HCA or an
area that could affect an HCA. MIPC neither contested this Item nor provided any explanation
for its delay in discovering the anomalies. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and
considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $46,000 for violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(2).
Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $18,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.432(a), for failing to inspect each in-service breakout tank at intervals not exceeding 15
4 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat.
1904, January 3, 2012, increased the civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to $200,000 per
violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.



CPF No. 1-2015-5017
Page 6
months. MIPC neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument
justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and
considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $18,300 for violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.432(a).
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 $108,900.
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 (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The
Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
Failure to pay the $108,900 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.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to the violation of § 195.452(h)(4)(i) (Item
1(b)). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous
liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable
safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C.
§ 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to
ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(h)(4)(i) (Item 1(b)), Respondent must
revise its integrity management plan and procedures to address the pressure-
reduction or pipeline shut-down requirements of § 195.452(h)(4)(i).
2. MIPC must submit the revised IMP procedures stipulated in Item 1 of this
Compliance Order to the Region Director within 90 days of receipt of this Final
Order.
3. Finally, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. 190.217,
Respondent is requested (not mandated) to maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit
the total to Byron Coy, PE, Director, Eastern Region, PHMSA. It is requested
that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with



CPF No. 1-2015-5017
Page 7
preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and 2) total cost
associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline
infrastructure.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the
Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States. Under 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.243, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final Order.
The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to
the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA will accept petitions
received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by the Respondent,
provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49
C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty
assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all other terms and
conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
December 2, 2016
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Acting Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 23502