# KIANTONE PIPELINE CORP — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 120185022
- **title:** KIANTONE PIPELINE CORP — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2018-05-14
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120185022.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120185022.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120185022
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120185022
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving KIANTONE PIPELINE CORP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.402(a). The case was opened on 2018-05-14 and is reported as closed as of 2019-06-12. Proposed civil penalty: $23,100. Assessed civil penalty: $23,100. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

120185022_Closure Letter_06122019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185022/120185022_Closure%20Letter_06122019.pdf

120185022_Closure Letter_06122019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185022/120185022_Closure%20Letter_06122019_text.pdf

120185022_Final Order_04122019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185022/120185022_Final%20Order_04122019.pdf

120185022_Final Order_04122019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185022/120185022_Final%20Order_04122019_text.pdf

120185022_NOPV PCP_05142018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185022/120185022_NOPV%20PCP_05142018.pdf

120185022_NOPV PCP_05142018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185022/120185022_NOPV%20PCP_05142018_text.pdf

120185022_Operator Response to Notice_06122018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120185022/120185022_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_06122018.pdf

120185022_Closure Letter_06122019_text.pdf

OVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY
June 12, 2019
Myron Turfitt
President and Chief Operating Officer
United Refining Company
15 Bradley Street
Warren, PA 16365
CPF 1-2018-5022
Dear Mr. Turfitt:
On April 12, 2019, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued
to Kiantone Pipeline Corporation a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included
a Civil Penalty assessment. Based on 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
Director, Eastern Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Cc: NY DPS

120185022_Final Order_04122019_text.pdf

April 12, 2019
Mr. Myron Turfitt
President and Chief Operating Officer
United Refining Company
15 Bradley Street
Warren, PA 16365
Re: CPF No. 1-2018-5022
Dear Mr. Turfitt:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of
violation and assesses a civil penalty of $23,100 to Kiantone Pipeline Corporation, a subsidiary
of United Refining Company. 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 is
effective 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
cc: Mr. Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Daniel Sobina, Regulatory Compliance Manager, United Refining Company
Mr. David Wortman, Vice President, Supply and Transportation, Kiantone Pipeline
Corporation, 814 Lexington Avenue, Warren, PA 16365
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 )
Kiantone Pipeline Corporation, ) CPF No. 1-2018-5022
a subsidiary of United Refining Company, )
)
)
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From June 26 through August 14, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, an inspector from the
New York State Department of Public Service, acting as an agent for 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 Kiantone Pipeline Corporation
(Kiantone or Respondent), a subsidiary of United Refining Company, in West Seneca, New
York. The Kiantone Pipeline is approximately 78 miles-long, and transports crude oil from
Buffalo, New York to Warren, Pennsylvania, to United Refining Company’s refinery.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated May 14, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty
(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Kiantone
had violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402, and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $23,100 for the
alleged violation.
United Refining Company responded to the Notice by letter dated June 12, 2018 (Response) on
behalf of Kiantone Pipeline Company. The company did not contest the allegation of violation
but 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.
FINDING OF VIOLATION
In its Response, Respondent did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.
Part 195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states:
1 http://www.pipelinesafetyinfo.com/user/file/Pennsylvania/Kiantone_Pipeline_Corp_United_Refining_Company.
pdf (last accessed November 29, 2018).



CPF No. 1-2018-5022
Page 2
§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and
emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline
system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations
and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and
emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15
months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes made
as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be
prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and
appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and
maintenance activities are conducted.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to prepare and
follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations
and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. Specifically, the
Notice alleged that Kiantone did not follow its procedure titled, “Annual Cathodic Protection and
New Cathodic Protection Systems Survey Procedure,” dated May 28, 2012. This procedure
specified that cathodic protection surveys of breakout tanks must be conducted once per calendar
year, not to exceed 15 months. Records reviewed during the inspection showed that cathodic
protection testing was performed on February 1, 2016 and June 20, 2017 for three breakout tanks
at Kiantone’s West Seneca Terminal. The interval between testing of the three breakout tanks
exceeded the 15-month maximum specified in Kiantone’s procedure.
Respondent 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. § 195.402(a) by failing to prepare and
follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations
and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies.
This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action
taken against Respondent.
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.2 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; 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 $23,100 for the violation cited above.
2 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, 49 C.F.R. § 190.223; Revisions to Civil Penalty Amounts,
83 Fed. Reg. 60732, 60744 (Nov. 27, 2018).



CPF No. 1-2018-5022
Page 3
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $23,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.402(a), for failing to prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual of written
procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal
operations and emergencies. In the Response, Respondent explained that Kiantone employs one
cathodic protection (CP) technician because the pipeline is a “smaller pipeline.”3 Respondent
further explained that its sole CP technician has been employed by Kiantone for 27 years and
“has always been able to comply with all cathodic protection system monitoring and evaluation
requirements.”4 However, the CP technician was unable to meet the deadline required by
Kiantone’s procedures because he was on medical leave at the time the tanks at the terminal were
due for annual cathodic protection testing.5 Respondent also stated that the company is now in
the process of training another employee to act as a back-up for the cathodic protection system
requirements if this same situation arises again in the future.
With respect to the nature, circumstances and gravity of the violation, the Violation Report
alleged that a State Partner discovered the violation, that the violation concerned a failure to
perform an activity, that pipeline safety was “minimally affected,” and that there were three
instances of the violation.6 Respondent argued the violation was a “single non-compliance
event.”7 I have reviewed the Violation Report and find that it appropriately classified the gravity
as three instances of the violation because three separate tanks were not tested in accordance
with Respondent’s procedures, thus resulting in a separate violation for each tank. I agree that
this violation had a minimal impact on safety, but no reduction in the penalty is warranted
because the calculation of the proposed penalty already accounted for this level of gravity.
Therefore, no reduction is warranted under these factors.
With respect to culpability, the Violation Report alleged that Respondent failed to take
appropriate action to comply with a requirement that was clearly applicable.8 When evaluating
an operator's culpability, PHMSA considers the extent to which the operator was responsible for
the violation that occurred. An operator is expected to be cognizant of the regulatory
requirements applicable to its operations and is held responsible for complying with those
requirements. An operator will generally be considered culpable for any failure to comply with
the requirements absent some justification for the failure, such as an unforeseeable
event outside of its control. Here, Respondent was on notice of the leave of its only CP
technician as well as the impending deadlines of the testing that the employee regularly
performed. The violation was foreseeable and, therefore, the proposed penalty is appropriate
based on the degree of Respondent’s culpability.
3 Response, at 1.
4 Id.
5 Id.
6 Violation Report, at 6-8.
7 Response, at 1.
8 Violation Report, at 9.



CPF No. 1-2018-5022
Page 4
With respect to good faith, Respondent argued that the company is training new personnel in
order to provide additional support in meeting the regulatory requirements in the future. When
considering good faith, PHMSA looks at the attempt by an operator to comply with the cited
regulation prior to the occurrence of the violation. If an operator made a clear, demonstrable
effort to comply with the cited regulation when the violation occurred, PHMSA may find it
appropriate to reduce the civil penalty. Here, Respondent did not provide information regarding
anticipatory efforts made by the company to comply with the regulations before the deadline for
the cathodic protection tests had passed. Therefore, no reduction is warranted based on the good
faith penalty criterion.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $23,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a).
Payment of the civil penalty of $23,100 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, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
Failure to pay the $23,100 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.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final
Order to the 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, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the
Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must 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. The other terms of the order, including any
corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a
stay. 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.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
April 12, 2019
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 15156