{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 12022027NOA","title":"TOLEDO REFINING COMPANY, LLC — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2022-03-04","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.402(c)(2), 195.402(c)(3), 195.402(c)(7), 195.402(f), 195.403(c), 195.452(f)(8).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-12022027noa.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-12022027noa.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-12022027noa","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/12022027NOA","body":"Notice of Amendment involving TOLEDO REFINING COMPANY, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(c)(2),  195.402(c)(3),  195.402(c)(7),  195.402(f),  195.403(c),  195.452(f)(8). The case was opened on 2022-03-04 and is reported as closed as of 2022-08-18. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n12022027NOA_Closure Letter_08182022_(21-199000).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12022027NOA/12022027NOA_Closure%20Letter_08182022_(21-199000).pdf\n\n12022027NOA_Closure Letter_08182022_(21-199000)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12022027NOA/12022027NOA_Closure%20Letter_08182022_(21-199000)_text.pdf\n\n12022027NOA_Notice of Amendment (REVISED)_03292022_(21-199000).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12022027NOA/12022027NOA_Notice%20of%20Amendment%20(REVISED)_03292022_(21-199000).pdf\n\n12022027NOA_Notice of Amendment (REVISED)_03292022_(21-199000)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12022027NOA/12022027NOA_Notice%20of%20Amendment%20(REVISED)_03292022_(21-199000)_text.pdf\n\n12022027NOA_Notice of Amendment_03042022_(21-199000).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12022027NOA/12022027NOA_Notice%20of%20Amendment_03042022_(21-199000).pdf\n\n12022027NOA_Notice of Amendment_03042022_(21-199000)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12022027NOA/12022027NOA_Notice%20of%20Amendment_03042022_(21-199000)_text.pdf\n\n12022027NOA_Notice of Amendment (REVISED)_03292022_(21-199000)_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY\nMarch 29, 2022\nMr. Michael Gudgeon\nRefinery Manager\nToledo Refining Company, LLC\n1819 Woodville Road\nOregon, Ohio 43616\nCPF 1-2022-027-NOA\nDear Mr. Gudgeon:\nFrom August 9, 2021 through September 15, 2021, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected\nToledo Refining Company, LLC’s (Toledo) procedures.\nOn the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within Toledo’s\nplans or procedures, as described below:\n1. § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) …\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n(1) …\n(2) Gathering of data needed for reporting accidents under subpart B\nof this part in a timely and effective manner.\nToledo’s procedures for accident reports were inadequate to ensure safe operation of a pipeline facility.\nSpecifically, Toledo’s Operations, Maintenance, and Emergencies Manual, dated 06/25/20 (OME)\nfailed to include procedures for the gathering of data needed for reporting accidents in a timely and\neffective manner in accordance with § 195.402(c)(2).\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA requested Toledo’s procedure regarding reporting accident reports.\nToledo provided its OME. OME Section 195.50 stated in part, “DOT Form 7000-1 Accident Report\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2022-027-NOA\n(This form must be filed within 30 days of discovery of the accident, and whenever changes in the\ninformation reported or additions to the original report are received.”\nHowever, the OME failed to state that a DOT Form 7000-1 Accident Report must be filed “as soon as\npracticable,” as required by § 195.54(a).1\nTherefore, Toledo’s procedures failed to include procedures for the gathering of data needed for\nreporting accidents in a timely and effective manner in accordance with § 195.402(c)(2). Toledo must\nrevise its procedures to address this requirement.\n2. § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) …\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n(1) …\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in\naccordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H\nof this part.\nToledo’s procedures for maintenance and normal operations were inadequate to ensure safe operation\nof a pipeline facility. Specifically, Toledo’s Operations, Maintenance, and Emergencies Manual,\ndated 06/25/20 (OME) failed to provide adequate details in its procedures for overpressure safety\ndevice inspection and testing in accordance with § 195.428(a).2\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA requested Toledo’s procedures regarding the § 195.428 requirements.\nToledo provided the OME Section 195.428 Overpressure Safety Devices and Overfill Protection\nSystems which stated in part, “Pressure Relief Valves – All pressure relief valves shall be inspected\nfor leaks and functionality at least once each calendar year, not to exceed 15 months. As needed,\nsettings shall be adjusted using appropriate testing equipment.”\nThe OME failed to provide sufficient guidance on conducting and documenting pressure relief valve\ninspections, such as:\n1. 2. 3. 4. What criteria are used to determine an acceptable “as-found” relief pressure.\nWhat actions must be taken if the relief valve “as-found” pressure does not meet the criteria.\nWhat are the definitions of the terms “set pressure” and “set point.”\nWhat are the criteria for determining “pass” and “fail.”\nTherefore, Toledo failed to provide adequate details in its procedures for overpressure safety device\ninspection and testing in accordance with § 195.428(a). Toledo must revise its procedures to address\nthis requirement.\n3. § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) …\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n12022027NOA_Notice of Amendment (REVISED)_03292022_(21-199000)_text Page 2 of 10\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2022-027-NOA\n(1) …\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in\naccordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H\nof this part.\nToledo’s procedures for maintenance and normal operations were inadequate to ensure safe operation\nof a pipeline facility. Specifically, Toledo’s Operations, Maintenance, and Emergencies Manual,\ndated 06/25/20 (OME) failed to include adequate details in its procedures for providing protection for\neach valve from unauthorized operation and from vandalism in accordance with § 195.420(c).3\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA requested Toledo’s procedures regarding valve protection. Toledo\nprovided its OME. OME Section 195.420 Valve Maintenance stated in part, “[e]ach valve shall be\nprotected from vandalism and unauthorized operation.” However, the OME failed to state how the\nvalves will be protected from unauthorized operation and from vandalism.\nTherefore, Toledo failed to include adequate details in its procedures for providing protection for each\nvalve from unauthorized operation and from vandalism in accordance with § 195.420(c). Toledo must\nrevise its procedures to address this requirement.\n4. § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) …\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n(1) …\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in\naccordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H\nof this part.\nToledo’s procedures for maintenance and normal operations were inadequate to ensure safe operation\nof a pipeline facility. Specifically, Toledo’s Operations, Maintenance, and Emergencies Manual,\ndated 06/25/20 (OME) failed to describe the interval and method for performing external ultrasonic\nthickness inspections of breakout tanks in accordance with § 195.432(b).4\nSection 195.432(b) requires that operators inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and\nlow-pressure steel above-ground breakout tanks according to API Std 653.5 According to API Std 653\nSection 6.3.3, ultrasonic thickness inspections must occur at an interval not exceeding five years if the\ncorrosion rate is not known.\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA requested Toledo’s procedures regarding external ultrasonic thickness\nbreakout tank inspections. Toledo provided the OME Section 195.432 Breakout Tanks which stated\nin part, “[u]ltrasonic thickness measurements of the shell shall be taken and a corrosion rate shall be\ndetermined. The external in-service inspection interval shall be determined by the formula of RCA/4N,\nwhere RCA is the remaining corrosion allowance or the difference between the measured shell\nthickness and the minimum required thickness in mils, and N is the shell corrosion rate in mils/year.”\nToledo stated that the inspection frequency appeared to be for external inspections of breakout tanks,\nnot ultrasonic thickness inspections. Therefore, Toledo’s procedures failed to state the interval for\n12022027NOA_Notice of Amendment (REVISED)_03292022_(21-199000)_text Page 3 of 10\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2022-027-NOA\nexternal ultrasonic thickness inspections. When PHMSA re-requested the procedures relevant to\nconducting ultrasonic thickness inspections, Toledo did not provide a relevant response.\nTherefore, Toledo’s procedures failed to describe the interval and method for performing external\nultrasonic thickness inspections of breakout tanks in accordance with § 195.432(b). Toledo must revise\nits procedures to address this requirement.\n5. § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) …\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n(1) …\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in\naccordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H\nof this part.\nToledo’s procedures for maintenance and normal operations were inadequate to ensure safe operation\nof a pipeline facility. Specifically, Toledo’s Operations, Maintenance, and Emergencies Manual,\ndated 06/25/20 (OME) failed to include a process to periodically review the work done by the\noperator’s personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and\nmaintenance and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found in accordance with §\n195.402(c)(13).6\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA requested Toledo’s procedures regarding the § 195.402(c)(13)\nrequirements and Toledo provided its OME. OME Section 195.402(c)(13) stated in part, “1)\nSupervisors will periodically review the work of operations and maintenance personnel. 2) The review\nshould be directed at determining the effectiveness of procedures used in normal operation and\nmaintenance. 3) Make appropriate changes or corrections to the procedures where deficiencies are\nfound” and “Documentation - F-195.402(c)(13) Review of Work Done by Operator Personnel - Any\ntraining resulting from the review will be documented.”\nHowever, the OME failed to provide details such as what method or process is used to evaluate the\nwork of operations and maintenance personnel and a specific interval to evaluate the work and\nassociated procedures. During the inspection, Toledo stated that there was no information on how the\n§ 195.402(c)(13) form is completed, nor any further process with those details.\nTherefore, Toledo failed to include a process to periodically review the work done by the operator’s\npersonnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance\nand taking corrective action where deficiencies are found in accordance with § 195.402(c)(13). Toledo\nmust revise its procedures to address this requirement.\n6. § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) …\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n(1) …\n12022027NOA_Notice of Amendment (REVISED)_03292022_(21-199000)_text Page 4 of 10\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2022-027-NOA\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in\naccordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H\nof this part.\nToledo’s procedures for maintenance and normal operations were inadequate to ensure safe operation\nof a pipeline facility. Specifically, Toledo’s Operations, Maintenance, and Emergencies Manual,\ndated 06/25/20 (OME) failed to adequately describe the interval and method for performing internal\ninspections of breakout tanks in accordance with § 195.432(b).7\nSection 195.432(b) prohibits the use of risk-based internal inspection procedures in API Std 653,\nsection 6.4.3 to determine the internal inspection interval. API Std 653 Section 6.4.2.2. requires that\nthe internal inspection interval shall not exceed 10 years when corrosion rates are not known.8\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA requested Toledo’s procedures regarding internal breakout tank\ninspections. Toledo provided the OME Section 195.432 Breakout Tanks which stated in part, “[t]he\nout-of-service inspection shall include all items addressed in the external in-service inspection and\ninclude a full floor scan of the tank bottom, when feasible, to evaluate [its] remaining service life and\na comprehensive inspection of the underside of the floating roof. When it is unfeasible to perform a\nfull floor scan of the tank bottom, a risk-based inspection assessment shall be performed by a trained\nand qualified individual knowledgeable in RBI methodology according to API-653 Section 4.4.3.”\nToledo’s procedures referenced evaluating the breakout tanks with a risk-based inspection which is\nnot permitted under § 195.432(b). Toledo stated that the references in its OME to the risk-based\nalternative needed updating.\nTherefore, Toledo’s procedures failed to adequately describe the interval and method for performing\ninternal inspections of breakout tanks in accordance with § 195.432(b). Toledo must revise its\nprocedures to address this requirement.\n7. § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) …\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n(1) …\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in\naccordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H\nof this part.\nToledo’s procedures for maintenance and normal operations were inadequate to ensure safe operation\nof a pipeline facility. Specifically, Toledo’s Operations, Maintenance, and Emergencies Manual,\ndated 06/25/20 (OME) failed to include details for protecting the pipeline against damage from fault\ncurrents or lightning in accordance with § 195.575(e).9\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA requested Toledo’s procedures regarding fault current and lightning\nprotection. Toledo provided the OME; however, the OME failed to include any procedure or details\nfor protecting the pipeline against damage from fault currents or lightning. Toledo discussed that they\nhave lightning arrestors in use at the facility, but this is not detailed in a procedure.\n12022027NOA_Notice of Amendment (REVISED)_03292022_(21-199000)_text Page 5 of 10\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2022-027-NOA\nTherefore, Toledo’s procedures failed to include details for protecting the pipeline against damage\nfrom fault currents or lightning in accordance with § 195.575(e). Toledo must revise its procedures to\naddress this requirement.\n8. § 195.402 Procedural Manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) …\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n(1) …\n(7) Starting up and shutting down any part of the pipeline system in a\nmanner designed to assure operation within the limits prescribed by §\n195.406, consider the hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide in\ntransportation, variations in altitude along the pipeline, and pressure\nmonitoring and control devices.\nToledo’s procedures for maintenance and normal operations were inadequate to ensure safe operation\nof a pipeline facility. Specifically, Toledo’s Operations, Maintenance, and Emergencies Manual,\ndated 06/25/20 (OME), Monitor Pressure/Flow/Temperature and Maintain Within Allowable Limits\nper DOT, dated 12/12/16 (Monitor Procedure) and Pipeline Startup and Shutdown, dated 06/29/18\n(Startup Procedure) failed to include processes for starting up and shutting down any part of the\npipeline system in a manner designed to assure operation within the limits prescribed by § 195.406,\nconsidering the hazardous liquid and variations in altitude along the pipeline in accordance with §\n195.402(c)(7).\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA requested Toledo’s procedure regarding starting up and shutting\ndown the pipeline system. Toledo provided its Monitor Procedure and Startup Procedure. However,\nthose procedures failed to include any details on starting up and shutting down any part of the\npipeline system in a manner designed to assure operation within the limits prescribed by § 195.406,\nconsidering the hazardous liquid in transportation, variations in altitude along the pipeline, and\npressure monitoring and control devices. When PHMSA requested further information on the\nrequirements within § 195.402(c)(7), such as how the limits prescribed by § 195.406 are considered\nas well as the process for shutting down pipeline valves in the system, Toledo stated that its\nprocedures do not mention the § 195.406 requirements.\nTherefore, Toledo’s procedures failed to include processes for starting up and shutting down any part\nof the pipeline system in a manner designed to assure operation within the limits prescribed by §\n195.406, considering the hazardous liquid and variations in altitude along the pipeline in accordance\nwith § 195.402(c)(7). Toledo must revise its procedures to address this requirement.\n9. § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) …\n(f) Safety-related condition reports. The manual required by paragraph\n(a) of this section must include instructions enabling personnel who\nperform operation and maintenance activities to recognize conditions that\npotentially may be safety-related conditions that are subject to the\nreporting requirements of § 195.55.\n12022027NOA_Notice of Amendment (REVISED)_03292022_(21-199000)_text Page 6 of 10\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2022-027-NOA\nToledo’s procedures for safety-related conditions were inadequate to ensure safe operation of a\npipeline facility. Specifically, Toledo’s Operations, Maintenance, and Emergencies Manual, dated\n06/25/20 (OME) failed to include instructions in its procedures enabling personnel who perform\noperation and maintenance activities to recognize conditions that may be safety-related conditions\nsubject to the reporting requirements of § 195.55.\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA requested Toledo’s procedure regarding recognizing safety-related\nconditions. Toledo provided the OME Section 195.55. Section 195.55 is related to reporting safety-\nrelated conditions and failed to include instructions related to the recognition of safety-related\nconditions. Toledo was unable to provide a relevant section of the OME which indicated compliance\nwith § 195.402(f).\nTherefore, Toledo failed to include instructions in its procedures enabling personnel who perform\noperation and maintenance activities to recognize conditions that may be safety-related conditions\nsubject to the reporting requirements of § 195.55 in accordance with § 195.402(f). Toledo must revise\nits procedures to address this requirement.\n10. § 195.403 Emergency response training.\n(a) …\n(c) Each operator shall require and verify that its supervisors maintain\na thorough knowledge of that portion of the emergency response\nprocedures established under 195.402 for which they are responsible to\nensure compliance.\nToledo’s procedures for emergency response training were inadequate to ensure safe operation of a\npipeline facility. Specifically, Toledo’s Operations, Maintenance, and Emergencies Manual, dated\n06/25/20 (OME) failed to require and include a process to verify that supervisors are knowledgeable\nof emergency response procedures for which they are responsible for in accordance with § 195.403(c).\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA requested Toledo’s procedures regarding emergency response\nsupervisor training. Toledo provided the OME Section 195.403 Emergency Response Training which\nstated in part, “[e]ach operator shall require and verify that its supervisors maintain a thorough\nknowledge of that portion of the procedures for which they are responsible to insure compliance.”\nThe OME did not include a detailed process to require and verify that supervisors are knowledgeable\nof emergency response procedures. Toledo was unable to provide a relevant section of the OME which\nindicated compliance with this requirement.\nTherefore, Toledo failed to require and include a process to verify that supervisors are knowledgeable\nof emergency response procedures for which they are responsible for in accordance with § 195.403(c).\nToledo must revise its procedures to address this requirement.\n11. § 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) …\n(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An\nintegrity management program begins with the initial framework. An\noperator must continually change the program to reflect operating\nexperience, conclusions drawn from results of the integrity assessments,\n12022027NOA_Notice of Amendment (REVISED)_03292022_(21-199000)_text Page 7 of 10\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2022-027-NOA\nand other maintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation of\nconsequences of a failure on the high consequence area. An operator must\ninclude, at minimum, each of the following elements in its written integrity\nmanagement program:\n(1) …\n(8) A process for review of integrity assessment results and\ninformation analysis by a person qualified to evaluate the results and\ninformation (see paragraph (h)(2) of this section).\nToledo’s procedures for integrity management were inadequate to ensure safe operation of a pipeline\nfacility. Specifically, Toledo’s Pipeline Integrity Management Plan, dated 12/10/20 (IMP) failed to\ninclude a process in its integrity management procedures for review of integrity assessment results and\ninformation analysis by a person qualified to evaluate the results and information in accordance with\n§ 195.452(f)(8).\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA requested Toledo’s procedure regarding qualifications for personnel\nwho evaluate integrity assessments and information analysis. Toledo provided the IMP Section 6.2\nwhich stated “[t]he Toledo Refining Company, LLC will use a third party to run ILI and generate\nfeature report. The feature list will be reviewed by one or more of the following: TRC Engineering\nGroup, TRC Inspection Group, TRC Operations, third party engineering or other groups familiar and\neducated in the interpretation. From this analysis, the feature list will be prioritized by severity and\nneed.”\nHowever, the IMP failed to include details specifying qualification requirements for personnel who\nreview and evaluate integrity assessment results and information analysis.\nTherefore, Toledo failed to include a process in its integrity management procedures for review of\nintegrity assessment results and information analysis by a person qualified to evaluate the results and\ninformation in accordance with § 195.452(f)(8). Toledo must revise its procedures to address this\nrequirement.\nResponse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206. Enclosed as part\nof this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement\nProceedings.\nPlease refer to this document and note the response options. Be advised that all material you submit\nin response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that\nany portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b),\nalong with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the\nportions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe\nthe redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, revised procedures,\nor a request for a hearing under § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this\nNotice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes\nthe Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further\nnotice to you and to issue an Order Directing Amendment. If your plans or procedures are found\n12022027NOA_Notice of Amendment (REVISED)_03292022_(21-199000)_text Page 8 of 10\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2022-027-NOA\ninadequate as alleged in this Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans or procedures to correct\nthe inadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.206). If you are not contesting this Notice, we propose that you\nsubmit your amended procedures to my office within 30 days of receipt of this Notice. This period\nmay be extended by written request for good cause. Once the inadequacies identified herein have been\naddressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement action will be closed.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Toledo Refining Company, LLC maintain documentation of the\nsafety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment (preparation/revision of\nplans, procedures) and submit the total to Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration, 840 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 300, West Trenton, NJ\n08628. In correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to CPF 1-2022-027-NOA and, for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible. Smaller files may\nbe emailed to robert.burrough@dot.gov. Larger files should be sent on USB flash drive accompanied\nby the original paper copy to the Eastern Region Office.\nSincerely,\nRobert Burrough\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings\n1 49 C.F.R. § 195.54 Accident reports.\n(a) Each operator that experiences an accident that is required to be reported under § 195.50 must, as soon as\npracticable, but not later than 30 days after discovery of the accident, file an accident report on DOT Form 7000-1.\n2 49 C.F.R. § 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but\nat least once each calendar year, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to\nexceed 7 1∕2 months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief\nvalve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is\nin good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the\nservice in which it is used.\n3 49 C.F.R. § 195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(a) …\n(c) Each operator shall provide protection for each valve from unauthorized operation and from vandalism.\n4 49 C.F.R. § 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n(a) …\n(b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel above-ground\nbreakout tanks according to API Std 653 (except section 6.4.3, Alternative Internal Inspection Interval)\n(incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). However, if structural conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, its\nintegrity may be assessed according to a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual under §\n195.402(c)(3). The risk-based internal inspection procedures in API Std 653, section 6.4.3 cannot be used to\ndetermine the internal inspection interval.\n12022027NOA_Notice of Amendment (REVISED)_03292022_(21-199000)_text Page 9 of 10\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2022-027-NOA\n5 API Std 653, Section 6.3.3.2 Ultrasonic Thickness Inspection\n…\nWhen the corrosion rate is not known, the maximum interval shall be 5 years. Corrosion rates may be estimated\nfrom tanks in similar service based on thickness measurements taken at an interval not exceeding 5 years. When the\ncorrosion rate is known, the maximum interval shall be the smaller of RCA/2N years (where RCA is the difference\nbetween the measured shell thickness and the minimum required thickness in mils, and N is the shell corrosion rate\nin mils per year) or 15 years\n6 49 C.F.R. § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) …\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section must include\nprocedures for the following to provide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n(1) …\n(13) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures\nused in normal operation and maintenance and taking corrective action where deficiencies are found.\n7 49 C.F.R. § 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n(a) …\n(b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel above-ground\nbreakout tanks according to API Std 653 (except section 6.4.3, Alternative Internal Inspection Interval)\n(incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). However, if structural conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, its\nintegrity may be assessed according to a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual under §\n195.402(c)(3). The risk-based internal inspection procedures in API Std 653, section 6.4.3 cannot be used to\ndetermine the internal inspection interval.\n8 API Standard 653 – Section 6.4.2.2 Inspection Intervals\nWhen corrosion rates are not known and similar service experience is not available to estimate the bottom plate\nminimum thickness at the next inspection, the internal inspection interval shall not exceed 10 years.\n9 49 C.F.R. § 195.575 Which facilities must I electrically isolate and what inspections, tests, and safeguards are\nrequired?\n(a) …\n(e) If a pipeline is in close proximity to electrical transmission tower footings, ground cables, or counterpoise, or in\nother areas where it is reasonable to foresee fault currents or an unusual risk of lightning, you must protect the\npipeline against damage from fault currents or lightning and take protective measures at insulating devices.\n12022027NOA_Notice of Amendment (REVISED)_03292022_(21-199000)_text Page 10 of 10\n\n12022027NOA_Closure Letter_08182022_(21-199000)_text.pdf\n\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY\nAugust 18, 2022\nMr. Michael Gudgeon\nRefinery Manager\nToledo Refining Company, LLC\n1819 Woodville Road\nOregon, Ohio 43616\nCPF 1-2022-027-NOA\nDear Mr. Gudgeon:\nFrom August 9, 2021 through September 15, 2021, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected\nToledo Refining Company, LLC’s (Toledo) procedures. As a result of the inspection, Toledo was\nissued a Notice of Amendment (NOA) on March 29, 2022, which proposed amendment of your\nprocedures. Toledo requested a time-extension of 30-days on April 1, 2022. On April 6, 2022,\nPHMSA granted the time extension letter. Toledo submitted its amended procedures on May 31,\n2022. On July 19, 2022 PHMSA held a meeting to address its concerns with Toledo regarding the\ninadequacies identified in the amended procedures. Toledo re-submitted its amended procedures\nfrom July 21, 2022 through July 29, 2022. My staff reviewed the amended procedures, and it\nappears that the inadequacies outlined in this Notice of Amendment have been corrected.\nThis letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank you\nfor your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nRobert Burrough\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n12022027NOA_Notice of Amendment_03042022_(21-199000)_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: Jeffery.Coleman@pbfenergy.com\nMarch 4, 2022\nMr. Jeffrey Coleman\nRefinery Manager\nToledo Refining Company, LLC\n1819 Woodville Road\nOregon, Ohio 43616\nCPF 1-2022-027-NOA\nDear Mr. Coleman:\nFrom August 9, 2021 through September 15, 2021, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected\nToledo Refining Company, LLC’s (Toledo) procedures.\nOn the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within Toledo’s\nplans or procedures, as described below:\n1. § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) …\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n(1) …\n(2) Gathering of data needed for reporting accidents under subpart B\nof this part in a timely and effective manner.\nToledo’s procedures for accident reports were inadequate to ensure safe operation of a pipeline facility.\nSpecifically, Toledo’s Operations, Maintenance, and Emergencies Manual, dated 06/25/20 (OME)\nfailed to include procedures for the gathering of data needed for reporting accidents in a timely and\neffective manner in accordance with § 195.402(c)(2).\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA requested Toledo’s procedure regarding reporting accident reports.\nToledo provided its OME. OME Section 195.50 stated in part, “DOT Form 7000-1 Accident Report\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2022-027-NOA\n(This form must be filed within 30 days of discovery of the accident, and whenever changes in the\ninformation reported or additions to the original report are received.”\nHowever, the OME failed to state that a DOT Form 7000-1 Accident Report must be filed “as soon as\npracticable,” as required by § 195.54(a).1\nTherefore, Toledo’s procedures failed to include procedures for the gathering of data needed for\nreporting accidents in a timely and effective manner in accordance with § 195.402(c)(2). Toledo must\nrevise its procedures to address this requirement.\n2. § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) …\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n(1) …\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in\naccordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H\nof this part.\nToledo’s procedures for maintenance and normal operations were inadequate to ensure safe operation\nof a pipeline facility. Specifically, Toledo’s Operations, Maintenance, and Emergencies Manual,\ndated 06/25/20 (OME) failed to provide adequate details in its procedures for overpressure safety\ndevice inspection and testing in accordance with § 195.428(a).2\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA requested Toledo’s procedures regarding the § 195.428 requirements.\nToledo provided the OME Section 195.428 Overpressure Safety Devices and Overfill Protection\nSystems which stated in part, “Pressure Relief Valves – All pressure relief valves shall be inspected\nfor leaks and functionality at least once each calendar year, not to exceed 15 months. As needed,\nsettings shall be adjusted using appropriate testing equipment.”\nThe OME failed to provide sufficient guidance on conducting and documenting pressure relief valve\ninspections, such as:\n1. 2. 3. 4. What criteria are used to determine an acceptable “as-found” relief pressure.\nWhat actions must be taken if the relief valve “as-found” pressure does not meet the criteria.\nWhat are the definitions of the terms “set pressure” and “set point.”\nWhat are the criteria for determining “pass” and “fail.”\n1 49 C.F.R. § 195.54 Accident reports.\n(a) Each operator that experiences an accident that is required to be reported under § 195.50 must, as soon as\npracticable, but not later than 30 days after discovery of the accident, file an accident report on DOT Form 7000-1.\n2 49 C.F.R. § 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but\nat least once each calendar year, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to\nexceed 7 1∕2 months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief\nvalve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is\nin good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the\nservice in which it is used.\n12022027NOA_Notice of Amendment_03042022_(21-199000)_text Page 2 of 10\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2022-027-NOA\nTherefore, Toledo failed to provide adequate details in its procedures for overpressure safety device\ninspection and testing in accordance with § 195.428(a). Toledo must revise its procedures to address\nthis requirement.\n3. § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) …\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n(1) …\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in\naccordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H\nof this part.\nToledo’s procedures for maintenance and normal operations were inadequate to ensure safe operation\nof a pipeline facility. Specifically, Toledo’s Operations, Maintenance, and Emergencies Manual,\ndated 06/25/20 (OME) failed to include adequate details in its procedures for providing protection for\neach valve from unauthorized operation and from vandalism in accordance with § 195.420(c).3\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA requested Toledo’s procedures regarding valve protection. Toledo\nprovided its OME. OME Section 195.420 Valve Maintenance stated in part, “[e]ach valve shall be\nprotected from vandalism and unauthorized operation.” However, the OME failed to state how the\nvalves will be protected from unauthorized operation and from vandalism.\nTherefore, Toledo failed to include adequate details in its procedures for providing protection for each\nvalve from unauthorized operation and from vandalism in accordance with § 195.420(c). Toledo must\nrevise its procedures to address this requirement.\n4. § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) …\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n(1) …\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in\naccordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H\nof this part.\nToledo’s procedures for maintenance and normal operations were inadequate to ensure safe operation\nof a pipeline facility. Specifically, Toledo’s Operations, Maintenance, and Emergencies Manual,\ndated 06/25/20 (OME) failed to describe the interval and method for performing external ultrasonic\nthickness inspections of breakout tanks in accordance with § 195.432(b).4\n3 49 C.F.R. § 195.420","truncated":true,"body_characters":62135}