{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 12023012NOA","title":"KIANTONE PIPELINE CORP — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2023-03-16","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.402(c)(13), 195.402(c)(3), 195.402(e)(9), 195.402(f), 195.403(c), 195.64(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-12023012noa.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-12023012noa.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-12023012noa","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/12023012NOA","body":"Notice of Amendment involving KIANTONE PIPELINE CORP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(c)(13),  195.402(c)(3),  195.402(e)(9),  195.402(f),  195.403(c),  195.64(c). The case was opened on 2023-03-16 and is reported as closed as of 2023-05-25. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n12023012NOA_Closure Letter_05252023_(22-233209).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12023012NOA/12023012NOA_Closure%20Letter_05252023_(22-233209).pdf\n\n12023012NOA_Closure Letter_05252023_(22-233209)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12023012NOA/12023012NOA_Closure%20Letter_05252023_(22-233209)_text.pdf\n\n12023012NOA_Notice of Amendment_03162023_(22-233209).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12023012NOA/12023012NOA_Notice%20of%20Amendment_03162023_(22-233209).pdf\n\n12023012NOA_Notice of Amendment_03162023_(22-233209)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12023012NOA/12023012NOA_Notice%20of%20Amendment_03162023_(22-233209)_text.pdf\n\n12023012NOA_Operator Response to Notice_04132023_(22-233209).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12023012NOA/12023012NOA_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_04132023_(22-233209).pdf\n\n12023012NOA_Closure Letter_05252023_(22-233209)_text.pdf\n\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY\nMay 25, 2023\nMr. Dave Wortman\nVice President, Supply and Transportation\nKiantone Pipeline Corp.\n15 Bradley Street\nPO BOX 780\nWarren, Pennsylvania 16365\nCPF 1-2023-012-NOA\nDear Mr. Wortman:\nFrom April 25, 2022 through May 20, 2022, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code conducted an\ninspection of Kiantone Pipeline Corp.’s (Kiantone) procedures and records in Warren,\nPennsylvania. As a result of the inspection, Kiantone was issued a Notice of Amendment (NOA)\non March 16, 2023, which proposed amendment of your procedures. On April 13, 2023, Kiantone\nprovided its response to the NOA as well as the subsequent amended procedures. On April 25,\n2023, PHMSA addressed additional concerns with Kiantone regarding the inadequacies identified\nin the amended procedures. Kiantone re-submitted its amended procedures from May 3, 2023\nthrough May 5, 2023. My staff reviewed the amended procedures, and it appears that the\ninadequacies 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\n12023012NOA_Notice of Amendment_03162023_(22-233209)_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY\nMarch 16, 2023\nMr. Dave Wortman\nVice President, Supply and Transportation\nKiantone Pipeline Corp.\n15 Bradley Street\nPO BOX 780\nWarren, Pennsylvania 16365\nCPF 1-2023-012-NOA\nDear Mr. Wortman:\nFrom April 25, 2022 through May 20, 2022, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code\n(U.S.C.) conducted an inspection of Kiantone Pipeline Corp.’s (Kiantone) procedures and records\nin Warren, Pennsylvania.\nAs a result of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within\nKiantone’s plans or procedures. The items inspected and the inadequacies are described below:\n1. 49 C.F.R. § 195.64 National Registry of Operators.\n(a) …\n(c) Changes. Each operator must notify PHMSA electronically\nthrough the National Registry of Operators at\nhttps://portal.phmsa.dot.gov, of certain events.\n(1) An operator must notify PHMSA of any of the following events\nnot later than 60 days before the event occurs:\n(i) Construction or any planned rehabilitation, replacement,\nmodification, upgrade, uprate, or update of a facility, other than a\nsection of line pipe, that costs $10 million or more. If 60-day notice is\nnot feasible because of an emergency, an operator must notify PHMSA\nas soon as practicable;\n\n\n\n(ii) Construction of 10 or more miles of a new or replacement\nhazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipeline;\n(iii) Reversal of product flow direction when the reversal is expected\nto last more than 30 days. This notification is not required for pipeline\nsystems already designed for bi-directional flow; or\n(iv) A pipeline converted for service under § 195.5, or a change in\ncommodity as reported on the annual report as required by § 195.49.\nKiantone’s procedures for maintenance and normal operations were inadequate. Specifically,\nOperations, Maintenance & Emergency Response Procedures Manual, dated 03/07/22 (OME)\nfailed to include a procedure for complying with the § 195.64(c) requirements for notifying\nPHMSA of changes through the National Registry of Operators.\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA requested Kiantone’s procedures regarding the National Registry\nof Operators. Kiantone discussed that these processes were not included in any procedure.\nTherefore, Kiantone’s procedures to include requirements for notifying PHMSA of changes\nthrough the National Registry of Operators in accordance with § 195.64(c). Kiantone must revise\nits 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\nto provide 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\nH of this part.\nKiantone’s procedures for maintenance and normal operations were inadequate. Specifically,\nKiantone’s Operations, Maintenance & Emergency Response Procedures Manual, dated 03/07/22\n(OME) failed to provide details on how its firefighting equipment inspections are conducted, in\naccordance with § 195.430(a).\nSection 195.430 states that “Each operator shall maintain adequate firefighting equipment at each\npump station and breakout tank area. The equipment must be- (a) In proper operating condition at\nall times”.\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA requested Kiantone’s procedures regarding its firefighting\nequipment inspections. Kiantone provided the OME Section 14.3 and discussed the inspection\nintervals listed in the table. However, the OME failed to state how these inspections are conducted,\nwhere they are maintained and how they are documented. When PHMSA requested additional\ninformation, Kiantone discussed that they follow the NFPA Standards for criteria, but the criteria\nwere not referenced or listed in the procedures.\n\n\n\nTherefore, Kiantone’s procedures failed to provide details on how its firefighting equipment\ninspections are conducted, in accordance with § 195.430. Kiantone must revise its procedures to\naddress this 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\nto provide 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\nH of this part.\nKiantone’s procedures for maintenance and normal operations were inadequate. Specifically,\nKiantone’s Operations, Maintenance & Emergency Response Procedures Manual, dated 03/07/22\n(OME) failed to include details on remedial action to ensure the safe operation of a pipeline\nfollowing an extreme weather event under § 195.414.\nSection 195.414(d) states:\nRemedial action. An operator must take prompt and appropriate remedial action to\nensure the safe operation of a pipeline based on the information obtained as a result\nof performing the inspection required under paragraph (a) of this section. Such\nactions might include, but are not limited to:\n(1) Reducing the operating pressure or shutting down the pipeline;\n(2) Modifying, repairing, or replacing any damaged pipeline facilities;\n(3) Preventing, mitigating, or eliminating any unsafe conditions in the pipeline right-\nof-way;\n(4) Performing additional patrols, surveys, tests, or inspections;\n(5) Implementing emergency response activities with Federal, State, or local\npersonnel; and\n(6) Notifying affected communities of the steps that can be taken to ensure public\nsafety.\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector requested Kiantone’s procedures regarding remedial\nactions following extreme weather events. Kiantone provided the OME Section 13.2.\nHowever, the procedure repeated the language of § 195.414(d) and failed to indicate any\nprocedure, process, instructions or details on selecting, employing, and documenting the\nappropriate remedial actions in the case of an extreme weather event.\nTherefore, Kiantone failed to include details on remedial actions to ensure the safe operation of a\npipeline following an extreme weather event in accordance with § 195.414(d). Kiantone must\nrevise its procedures to address this requirement.\n4. § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n\n\n\n(a) …\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following\nto provide 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\nH of this part.\nKiantone’s procedures for maintenance and normal operations were inadequate. Specifically,\nKiantone’s Operations, Maintenance and Emergency Manual, Section 11 Inspection of Breakout\nTanks, dated 03/07/22 (OME) and United Refining Company – PA DEP In-Service and Out-of-\nService Tank Inspections Procedure, dated 05/30/02 (URC Procedure) failed to describe the\ninterval and method for performing external inspections of breakout tanks per the requirements of\n§ 195.432(b).\nSection § 195.432(b) states:\nEach operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-\npressure steel above-ground breakout tanks according to API Std 653 (except\nsection 6.4.3, Alternative Internal Inspection Interval) (incorporated by reference,\nsee §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\nmaintenance manual under §195.402(c)(3). The risk-based internal inspection\nprocedures in API Std 653, section 6.4.3 cannot be used to determine the internal\ninspection interval.\nAPI Standard 653 – Section 6.3.2.1 states in part:\nAll tanks shall be given a visual external inspection by an authorized inspector. This\ninspection shall be called the external inspection and must be conducted at least\nevery 5 years or RCA/4N years (where RCA is the difference between the measured\nshell thickness and the minimum required thickness in mils, and N is the shell\ncorrosion rate in mils per year) whichever is less. Tanks may be in operation during\nthis inspection.\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA requested Kiantone’s procedures regarding external breakout tank\ninspections. Kiantone provided the OME Section 11 and the URC Procedure. The URC Procedure\nstated in part, “The inspections performed on the Kiantone Breakout Tanks located in\nPennsylvania (647 and 648 Tanks) are included in this procedure to meet the requirements of Part\n195.432, which requires inspection in accordance with API 653 Section 6.”\nHowever, the OME failed to reference the appropriate URC procedure used for external\ninspections in Pennsylvania. When the PHMSA inspector asked Kiantone which procedure was\nused for external inspections, Kiantone discussed how they reference API 653 in-service and out-\nof-service tank inspections. Additionally, the URC Procedure failed to reference the appropriate\njurisdictional breakout tanks (650, 651 and 652) for inspection located in Pennsylvania.\n\n\n\nTherefore, Kiantone’s procedures failed to describe the interval and method for performing\nexternal inspections of breakout tanks, in accordance with § 195.432(b). Kiantone must revise its\nprocedures 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\nto provide 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\nH of this part.\nKiantone’s procedures for maintenance and normal operations were inadequate to assure safe\noperation of a pipeline facility. Specifically, Kiantone’s Operations, Maintenance & Emergency\nResponse Procedures Manual, dated 03/07/22 (OME) and United Refining Company – PA DEP\nIn-Service and Out-of-Service Tank Inspections Procedure, dated 05/30/02 (URC Procedure)\nfailed to describe the interval and method for performing external ultrasonic thickness inspections\nof breakout tanks per the requirements of § 195.432(b).\nSection § 195.432(b) states:\nEach operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-\npressure steel above-ground breakout tanks according to API Std 653 (except section\n6.4.3, Alternative Internal Inspection Interval) (incorporated by reference, see\n§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\nmaintenance manual under §195.402(c)(3). The risk-based internal inspection\nprocedures in API Std 653, section 6.4.3 cannot be used to determine the internal\ninspection interval.\nAPI Standard 653 – Section 6.3.3.2 states in part regarding Ultrasonic Thickness Inspection:\nWhen the corrosion rate is not known, the maximum interval shall be 5 years.\nCorrosion rates may be estimated from tanks in similar service based on thickness\nmeasurements taken at an interval not exceeding 5 years. When the corrosion rate is\nknown, the maximum interval shall be the smaller of RCA/2N years (where RCA is\nthe difference between the measured shell thickness and the minimum required\nthickness in mils, and N is the shell corrosion rate in mils per year) or 15 years.\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA requested Kiantone’s procedures regarding external ultrasonic\nthickness breakout tank inspections. Kiantone provided the OME Section 11 and the URC\nProcedure. The URC Procedure stated in part, “The inspections performed on the Kiantone\nBreakout Tanks located in Pennsylvania (647 and 648 Tanks) are included in this procedure to\nmeet the requirements of Part 195.432, which requires inspection in accordance with API 653\nSection 6”, and “Thickness measurements using ultrasonic equipment, shall be obtained at a\n\n\n\nminimum at the following specified TML's (Thickness Measurement Locations) to establish the\nrequired corrosion rate calculations…”\nHowever, the OME failed to reference the appropriate URC procedure used for external ultrasonic\nthickness inspections in Pennsylvania. When the PHMSA inspector asked Kiantone which\nprocedure was used for external ultrasonic thickness inspection, Kiantone discussed how they\nreference API 653 in-service and out-of-service tank inspections. The URC procedure discussed\nthe inspection frequency for external inspections of breakout tanks, not external ultrasonic\nthickness inspections. When PHMSA re-requested the procedures relevant to conducting\nultrasonic thickness inspections, Kiantone did not have a response. Additionally, the URC\nProcedure failed to reference the appropriate jurisdictional breakout tanks (650, 651 and 652) for\ninspection located in Pennsylvania.\nTherefore, Kiantone’s procedures failed to describe the interval and method for performing\nexternal ultrasonic thickness inspections of breakout tanks, in accordance with § 195.432(b).\nKiantone must 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\nto provide 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\nH of this part.\nKiantone’s procedures for maintenance and normal operations were inadequate. Specifically,\nKiantone’s Operations, Maintenance and Emergency Manual, Section 11 Inspection of Breakout\nTanks, dated 03/07/22 (OME) and United Refining Company – PA DEP In-Service and Out-of-\nService Tank Inspections Procedure, dated 05/30/02 (URC Procedure) failed to describe the\ninterval and method for performing internal inspections of breakout tanks per the requirements of\n§ 195.432(b).\nSection § 195.432(b) stated:\nEach operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-\npressure steel above-ground breakout tanks according to API Std 653 (except section\n6.4.3, Alternative Internal Inspection Interval) (incorporated by reference, see\n§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\nmaintenance manual under §195.402(c)(3). The risk-based internal inspection\nprocedures in API Std 653, section 6.4.3 cannot be used to determine the internal\ninspection interval.\n\n\n\nAPI Standard 653 – Section 6.4.1.2 stated in part, “All tanks shall have a formal internal inspection\nconducted at the intervals defined by 6.4.2 or 6.4.3.” API Standard 653 – Section 6.4.2.2 stated in\npart, “When corrosion rates are not known and similar service experience is not available to\nestimate the bottom plate minimum thickness at the next inspection, the internal inspection interval\nshall not exceed 10 years.”\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA requested Kiantone’s procedures regarding internal breakout tank\ninspections. Kiantone provided the OME Section 11 and the URC Procedure. The URC Procedure\nstated in part, “The inspections performed on the Kiantone Breakout Tanks located in\nPennsylvania (647 and 648 Tanks) are included in this procedure to meet the requirements of Part\n195.432, which requires inspection in accordance with API 653 Section 6.”\nHowever, the OME failed to reference the appropriate URC procedure used for internal inspections\nin Pennsylvania. When the PHMSA inspector asked Kiantone which procedure was used for\ninternal inspections, Kiantone discussed how they reference API 653 in-service and out-of-service\ntank inspections. Additionally, the URC Procedure failed to reference the appropriate\njurisdictional breakout tanks (650, 651 and 652) for inspection located in Pennsylvania. The URC\nProcedure also failed to indicate how internal inspections are conducted per the requirements in\nAPI 653 Section 6.4.2.2.\nTherefore, Kiantone’s procedures failed to describe the interval and method for performing\ninternal inspections of breakout tanks, in accordance with § 195.432(b). Kiantone 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\nto provide 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\nH of this part.\nKiantone's procedures for maintenance and normal operations were inadequate to ensure safe\noperation of a pipeline facility. Specifically, Kiantone's Operations, Maintenance & Emergency\nResponse Procedures Manual, dated 03/07/22 (OME) failed to require and include a process to\nverify that supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of that portion of the corrosion control\nprocedures established under § 195.402(c)(3) for which they are responsible for insuring\ncompliance in accordance with § 195.555.\nKiantone's OME Section 15.1 stated in part:\nAll tests, surveys, inspections, and maintenance procedures described or referenced\nin this section shall be performed by, or supervised by, personnel qualified by either\ntraining or experience with cathodic protection systems and related testing\nequipment. URC corrosion personnel will be NACE certified, and also routinely\n\n\n\nattend continuing education meetings, trainings, seminars, etc. Records for each\nURC corrosion employee will be kept on file.\nHowever, the OME failed to provide procedures or documentation addressing how Kiantone\nverifies that supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of Kiantone’s specific corrosion control\nprocedures. Furthermore, the OME failed to explicitly require that supervisors review the\nprocedures for which they are responsible for.\nTherefore, Kiantone’s procedures failed to require and include a process to verify that supervisors\nmaintain a thorough knowledge of that portion of the corrosion control procedures established\nunder§ 195.402(c)(3) for which they are responsible for insuring compliance in accordance with\n§ 195.555. Kiantone must revise its procedures to address 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\nto provide 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\nH of this part.\nKiantone’s procedures for maintenance and normal operation were inadequate. Specifically,\nKiantone’s Operations, Maintenance & Emergency Response Procedures Manual, dated 03/07/22\n(OME) failed to include a description or details of its methodology for evaluating the severity of\ncoating and atmospheric corrosion deficiencies of pipe inspected pursuant to § 195.583, and for\ndocumenting these inspections.\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA requested Kiantone’s procedure for atmospheric corrosion\ninspections. Kiantone provided the OME Section 15.5. Kiantone’s OME Section 15.5 stated in\npart:\nKiantone inspects each pipeline or portion of pipeline exposed to the\natmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion once every three years, with\nintervals not exceeding 39 months. During inspections, particular attention is\ngiven to soil-to-air interfaces, underneath disbanded coatings, at pipe supports,\nin spans over water (if applicable), and under thermal insulation (if present) for\nevidence of corrosion.\nAny conditions that require remediation that are noted in an inspection will be\nremediated as soon as practical, but before the next atmospheric corrosion\nsurvey/inspection is due (every three years, not to exceed 39 months).\nRemediation will be prioritized based on severity and zone/location.\nWhile the OME did identify what conditions require remediation, it failed to include any\n\n\n\nprocedures for evaluating the existence or severity of these coating and atmospheric corrosion\nconditions for the purposes of requiring or prioritizing remediation. The OME also failed to\ninclude any procedures or processes addressing how the atmospheric corrosion inspection is\ndocumented and retained. When PHMSA requested if there were additional procedures or\nguidance related to atmospheric corrosion, Kiantone stated that the specifics are not laid out in the\nprocedure and that the third-party contractor conducts the inspections.\nTherefore, Kiantone’s procedures failed to include a description or details of its methodology for\nevaluating the severity of coating and atmospheric corrosion deficiencies of pipe inspected\npursuant to § 195.583, and for documenting these inspections. Kiantone must revise its procedures\nto address this deficiency.\n9. § 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\nto provide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n(1) …\n(13) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to\ndetermine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation\nand maintenance and taking corrective action where deficiencies are\nfound.\nKiantone’s procedures for maintenance and normal operations were inadequate. Specifically,\nKiantone’s Operations, Maintenance & Emergency Response Procedures Manual, dated 03/07/22\n(OME) failed to provide details on periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to\ndetermine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and taking\ncorrective action where deficiencies are found.\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector requested Kiantone’s procedures regarding §\n195.402(c)(13). Kiantone provided its OME Section 1.6. However, Kiantone’s OME did not\nprovide any procedures addressing when the effectiveness reviews are conducted, how they are\nperformed or how they are documented.\nTherefore, Kiantone failed to include details in its written procedures on periodically reviewing\nthe work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures in accordance\nwith § 195.402(c)(13). Kiantone must revise its procedures to address this requirement.\n10. § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) …\n(e) Emergencies. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this\nsection must include procedures for the following to provide safety\nwhen an emergency condition occurs:\n(1) …\n(9) Providing for a post-accident review of employee activities to\ndetermine whether the procedures were effective in each emergency\n\n\n\nand taking corrective action where deficiencies are found.\nKiantone’s procedures for emergencies were inadequate to ensure safe operation of a pipeline\nfacility. Specifically, Kiantone’s Operations, Maintenance & Emergency Response Procedures\nManual, dated 03/07/22 (OME) failed to include processes to provide a post-accident review of\nemployee activities to determine whether the procedures were effective in each emergency and\ntaking corrective actions where deficiencies are found.\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA requested Kiantone’s procedures regarding the § 195.402(e)(9)\nrequirements. Kiantone discussed that they have a post-accident review form, but do not have any\nspecific procedures related to this requirement.\nTherefore, Kiantone’s procedures failed to include review of employee activities to determine\nwhether the procedures were effective in each emergency and taking corrective action where\ndeficiencies are found, in accordance with § 195.402(e)(9). Kiantone must revise its procedures\nto address this requirement.\n11. § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) …\n(f) Safety-related condition reports. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include instructions enabling\npersonnel who perform operation and maintenance activities to\nrecognize conditions that potentially may be safety-related conditions\nthat are subject to the reporting requirements of § 195.55.\nKiantone’s procedures for safety related condition reports were inadequate. Specifically,\nKiantone’s Operations, Maintenance & Emergency Response Procedures Manual, dated 03/07/22\n(OME) failed to include instructions enabling personnel who perform operation and maintenance\nactivities to recognize conditions that potentially may be safety-related conditions (SRCs) that are\nsubject to the reporting requirements of § 195.55.\nDuring the inspection, the PHMSA inspector requested Kiantone’s procedure regarding\nrecognizing SRCs. Kiantone provided the OME Section 3 (SRC Procedures). Section 3 presented\nKiantone’s definition of SRCs, which matched the list of SRCs found in § 195.55(a). It also stated\nthat the employee training program is its method of ensuring employees can recognize potential\nSRCs and referenced Section 1.7 of the OME. Section 1.7 of the OME stated that the employee\ntraining program includes training that may address topics including a review of the definition of\nSRCs, examples and case studies, and the DOT reporting requirements.\nHowever, Kiantone was unable to demonstrate that the SRC Procedures or the employee training\nprogram provided instructions for personnel to recognize conditions that potentially may be SRCs.\nThe SRC Procedures lacked any criteria and/or examples that would allow Kiantone personnel to\ndifferentiate between what is and what is not a potential safety-related condition. When the\nPHMSA inspector re-requested information related to § 195.55, Kiantone discussed the\ninformation is in the training program, but is not specifically spelled out. Kiantone was unable to\nclarify or demonstrate where in the training program the recognition of SRCs is addressed.\n\n\n\nTherefore, Kiantone failed to include instructions in its written procedures for personnel to\nrecognize conditions that potentially may be safety-related conditions in accordance with §\n195.402(f). Kiantone must revise its procedures to address this requirement.\n12. § 195.403 Emergency response training.\n(a) ...\n(c) Each operator shall require and verify that its supervisors\nmaintain a thorough knowledge of that portion of the emergency\nresponse procedures established under 195.402 for which they are\nresponsible to ensure compliance.\nKiantone’s procedures for emergency response training were inadequate to ensure safe operation\nof a pipeline facility. Specifically, Kiantone’s Operations, Maintenance & Emergency Response\nProcedures Manual, dated 03/07/22 (OME) failed to require and include a process to verify that\nsupervisors be knowledgeable of emergency response procedures for which they are responsible\nfor per the requirements of § 195.403(c).\nDuring the inspection, PHMSA requested Kiantone’s procedures regarding emergency response\nsupervisor training. Kiantone provided the OME. Section 19.3 of the OME stated in part:\nKiantone personnel receive training in the use of Company emergency response\nprocedures. The training includes “table-top” discussions of emergency scenarios. In\naddition, Kiantone ensures that supervisors and First Responders have received\ntraining to demonstrate competency in the following areas…\nSimulated emergency response drills are normally conducted twice per year, but at\nleast annually, to further ensure appropriate actions in the event of an emergency.\nDrills are planned to prevent injury or damage. Third parties such as emergency\nresponders, public officials, and external agencies may be invited to observe and\nparticipate in the drill(s). Records of the training exercise should be documented on\nForm 19.3.2, Emergency Response Training Exercise.\nHowever, the OME failed to include procedures or details addressing how the drills or other means\nare used to verify Kiantone’s supervisors are knowledgeable of applicable emergency response\nprocedures for which they are responsible to ensure compliance.\nTherefore, Kiantone's procedures failed to require and include a process to verify that supervisors\nare knowledgeable of emergency response procedures for which they are responsible for, in\naccordance with § 195.403(c). Kiantone must revise its procedures to address this requirement.\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\npart of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance\nProceedings.\n\n\n\nPlease refer to this document and note the response options. Be advised that all material you\nsubmit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you\nbelieve that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5\nU.S.C. § 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of\nthe document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an\nexplanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under\n5 U.S.C. § 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, revised\nprocedures, or a request for a hearing under §190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of\nreceipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice\nand authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice\nwithout further notice to you and to issue an Order Directing Amendment. If your plans or\nprocedures are found inadequate as alleged in this Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans\nor procedures to correct the inadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.206). If you are not contesting this\nNotice, we propose that you submit your amended procedures to my office within 30 days of\nreceipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause. Once the\ninadequacies identified herein have been addressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement\naction will be closed.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Kiantone Pipeline Corp. maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement 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. In correspondence concerning this matter, please refer\nto CPF 1-2023-012-NOA and, for each document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic\nformat whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nRobert Burrough\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: John Wagner, Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, United Refining\nCompany; jwagner@urc.com\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings","truncated":false,"body_characters":34310}