{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 12024035NOPV","title":"CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION (TERMINALS) — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":"2024-08-30","effective_on":null,"summary":"OPEN notice of probable violation citing 195.310(a), 195.310(b), 195.402(a), 195.402(c)(13), 195.403(c), 195.406(a), 195.428(a), 195.446(c)(3), 195.589(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-12024035nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-12024035nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-12024035nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/12024035NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION (TERMINALS). PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.310(a),  195.310(b),  195.402(a),  195.402(c)(13),  195.403(c),  195.406(a),  195.428(a),  195.446(c)(3),  195.589(c). The case was opened on 2024-08-30 and is reported as open. Proposed civil penalty: $66,600. Assessed civil penalty: $0. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n12024035NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_12302025_(23-263976).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12024035NOPV/12024035NOPV_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_12302025_(23-263976).pdf\n\n12024035NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_12302025_(23-263976)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12024035NOPV/12024035NOPV_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_12302025_(23-263976)_text.pdf\n\n12024035NOPV_Operator Request for Informal Conference and Request for Hearing and Preliminary Statement of Issues (Part 1)_11222024_(23-263976).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12024035NOPV/12024035NOPV_Operator%20Request%20for%20Informal%20Conference%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing%20and%20Preliminary%20Statement%20of%20Issues%20(Part%201)_11222024_(23-263976).pdf\n\n12024035NOPV_Operator Request for Informal Conference and Request for Hearing and Preliminary Statement of Issues (Part 2)_11222024_(23-263976).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12024035NOPV/12024035NOPV_Operator%20Request%20for%20Informal%20Conference%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing%20and%20Preliminary%20Statement%20of%20Issues%20(Part%202)_11222024_(23-263976).pdf\n\n12024035NOPV_Operator Withdrawal of Hearing Request_01052026_(23-263976).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12024035NOPV/12024035NOPV_Operator%20Withdrawal%20of%20Hearing%20Request_01052026_(23-263976).pdf\n\n12024035NOPV_PCO PCP_08302024_(23-263976).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12024035NOPV/12024035NOPV_PCO%20PCP_08302024_(23-263976).pdf\n\n12024035NOPV_PCO PCP_08302024_(23-263976)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12024035NOPV/12024035NOPV_PCO%20PCP_08302024_(23-263976)_text.pdf\n\n12024035NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_08282025_(23-263976).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12024035NOPV/12024035NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_08282025_(23-263976).pdf\n\n12024035NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_08282025_(23-263976)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12024035NOPV/12024035NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_08282025_(23-263976)_text.pdf\n\n12024035NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_06102025_(23-263976).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12024035NOPV/12024035NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_06102025_(23-263976).pdf\n\n12024035NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_06102025_(23-263976)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12024035NOPV/12024035NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_06102025_(23-263976)_text.pdf\n\n12024035NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_08282025_(23-263976)_text.pdf\n\nAugust 28, 2025\nVIA EMAIL TO: BKurdock@babstcalland.com, Ian.Curry@dot.gov et al.\nMs. Brianne Kurdock, Esq.\nCounsel for Citgo\nBabst Calland\n505 9th Street, NW Ste. 602\nWashington, DC 20004\nMs. Emma Ross, Esq.\nCounsel for the Agency\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\n1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E.\nWashington, DC 20590\nRe: PHMSA CPF No.: 1-2024-033-NOPV, 1-2024-035-NOPV, 1-2024-036-NOPV, 1-\n20204-037-NOPV, 1-2024-038-NOPV, Citgo, Hearing Rescheduled\nDear Ms. Kurdock and Ms. Ross,\nOn August 27, 2025, the parties jointly requested a continuance with respect to the\nOctober 29th hearing and pre-hearing filings in this matter due to their ongoing and\nproductive settlement negotiations regarding the fifty items at issue in this matter.\nAccordingly, the hearing is rescheduled for January 21, 2026, beginning at 9:30 a.m.\nEastern Time at DOT Headquarters. Prehearing filings are due January 9, 2026.\nInstructions communicated in the prior scheduling order remain in effect.\nRegards,\nDolores Francis\nPresiding Official\n\n12024035NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_12302025_(23-263976)_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nDecember 30, 2025\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: cjorda@citgo.com\nCarlos Jordá\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nCITGO Pipeline Company; CITGO Petroleum Corporation (Terminals)\n1289 Eldridge Parkway\nHouston, Texas 77077\nCPF Nos. 1-2024-033-NOPV\n1-2024-035-NOPV\n1-2024-036-NOPV\n1-2024-037-NOPV\n1-2024-038-NOPV\nDear Mr. Jordá:\nEnclosed please find a Consent Order incorporating the terms of the Consent Agreement\nbetween the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and CITGO\nPipeline Company; CITGO Petroleum Corporation (Terminals), which was executed on\n12/23/2025. Service of the Consent Order and Consent Agreement by electronic mail is\ndeemed effective upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt, or as\notherwise provided under 49 CFR § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nfor Linda Daugherty\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure: Consent Order and Consent Agreement\ncc: Robert Burrough, Region Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nAnn Al-Bahish, Senior Corporate Counsel – HSE, CITGO Petroleum Corporation,\n\n\n\n2\naalbahi@citgo.com\nBrianne Kurdock, Counsel for CITGO, Babst Calland, bkurdock@babstcalland.com\nCONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nCITGO Pipeline Company; CITGO )\nPetroleum Corporation (Terminals), )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondents. )\n____________________________________)\nCPF Nos. 1-2024-033-NOPV\n1-2024-035-NOPV\n1-2024-036-NOPV\n1-2024-037-NOPV\n1-2024-038-NOPV\nCONSENT ORDER\nBy letters dated August 30, 2024, pursuant to 49 CFR § 190.207, the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), issued five Notices\nof Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalties, and Proposed Compliance Orders (Notices) to\nCITGO Pipeline Company and CITGO Petroleum Corporation (Terminals) (CITGO or\nRespondents).\nCITGO responded to the Notices by letters dated November 22, 2024. Respondents contested\nmost of the alleged violations, the proposed civil penalties, and the proposed compliance orders,\nand requested a hearing. CITGO also requested to meet informally with PHMSA to discuss the\nmatters raised in its Responses. Respondents and PHMSA (the Parties) subsequently met on\nFebruary 5 and July 29, 2025. As a result of those discussions, the Parties have agreed to a\nConsent Agreement by which PHMSA makes findings of violations for 12 Items alleged in the\nNotices, Respondents will pay a reduced civil penalty in the amount of $185,400, and\nRespondents will complete certain compliance actions.\nAccordingly, the Consent Agreement is hereby approved and incorporated by reference into this\nConsent Order issued pursuant to 49 CFR § 190.219. CITGO is hereby ordered to comply with\nthe terms of the Consent Agreement pursuant to its terms. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq.,\nfailure to comply with this Consent Order may result in the assessment of civil penalties as set\nforth in 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, or in referral to the Attorney General for\nappropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nThe terms and conditions of this Consent Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 CFR § 190.5.\n______________________ ______________________\nfor Linda Daugherty Date Issued\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2024-033-NOPV et al.\nPage 1\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nCITGO Pipeline Company; CITGO )\nPetroleum Corporation (Terminals), )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondents. )\n____________________________________)\nCPF Nos. 1-2024-033-NOPV\n1-2024-035-NOPV\n1-2024-036-NOPV\n1-2024-037-NOPV\n1-2024-038-NOPV\nCONSENT AGREEMENT\nFrom April 17, 2023 through November 7, 2023, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter\n601 of Title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of\nthe facilities and records of CITGO Pipeline Company and CITGO Petroleum Corporation\n(Terminals) (CITGO or Respondents) in Sour Lake, Texas; Linden, New Jersey; Toledo, Ohio;\nNiles, Michigan; and Everglades, Florida.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondents, by letters dated August 30, 2024, five Notices of Probable Violation, Proposed\nCivil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notices), which also included warning items\npursuant to 49 CFR § 190.205. In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.207, the Notices collectively\nproposed finding that CITGO committed 21 violations of 49 CFR Parts 194 and 195, proposed\nordering Respondents to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations, and proposed a\ncivil penalty of $432,900. Other probable violations were brought as warnings, advising the\noperators to correct the probable violations or face potential future enforcement action.\nCITGO responded to the Notices by letters dated November 22, 2024 (Responses). Respondents\ncontested most of the alleged violations, the proposed civil penalties, and the proposed\ncompliance order, and requested a hearing. CITGO also requested to meet informally with\nPHMSA to discuss the matters raised in its Responses.\nPHMSA and Respondents (the Parties) subsequently met to discuss the issues raised in the\nResponses. As a result of those discussions and as explained in more detail below, the Parties\nhave agreed to a Consent Agreement by which PHMSA makes findings of violations for 12\nItems alleged in the Notices and withdraws 9 Items. Respondents will pay a reduced civil penalty\nin the amount of $185,400, and Respondents will complete certain compliance actions.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2024-033-NOPV et al.\nPage 2\nHaving agreed that settlement of this proceeding will avoid further administrative proceedings or\nlitigation and will serve the public interest by promoting safety and protection of the\nenvironment, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq. and 49 CFR Part 190, and upon consent and\nagreement, the Parties hereby agree as follows:\nI. General Provisions:\n1. Respondents acknowledge that as the operators of the pipeline facilities subject to\nthe Notice, Respondents and their referenced pipeline facilities are subject to the jurisdiction of\nthe Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and\nadministrative orders issued thereunder. For purposes of this Consent Agreement (Agreement),\nRespondents acknowledge that they received proper notice of PHMSA’s action in these\nproceedings and that the Notices state claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 49\nU.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder.\n2. After Respondents return this signed Agreement to PHMSA, the Agency’s\nrepresentative will present it to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, recommending\nthat the Associate Administrator adopt the terms of this Agreement by issuing an administrative\norder (Consent Order) incorporating the terms of this Agreement. The terms of this Agreement\nconstitute an offer of settlement until accepted by the Associate Administrator. Once accepted, the\nAssociate Administrator will issue a Consent Order incorporating the terms of this Agreement.\n3. Respondents consent to the issuance of the Consent Order, and hereby waive any\nfurther procedural requirements with respect to its issuance. Respondents waive all rights to\ncontest the adequacy of Notices, or the validity of the Consent Order or this Agreement,\nincluding all rights to administrative or judicial hearings or appeals, except for the Dispute\nResolution provisions set forth herein. Respondents agree to withdraw their requests for an\nadministrative hearing regarding the Notices.\n4. This Agreement shall apply to and be binding upon PHMSA and Respondents,\ntheir officers, directors, and employees, and their successors, assigns, or other entities or persons\notherwise bound by law. Respondents agree to provide a copy of this Agreement and any\nincorporated work plans and schedules to all of Respondent’s officers, employees, and agents\nwhose duties might reasonably include compliance with this Agreement.\n5. This Agreement constitutes the final, complete and exclusive agreement and\nunderstanding between the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in this Agreement.\nThe Parties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements or understandings relating\nto settlement other than those expressly contained in this Agreement, except that the terms of this\nAgreement may be construed by reference to the Notices.\n6. Nothing in this Agreement affects or relieves Respondents of their responsibility\nto comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. §\n60101, et seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. Nothing in this Agreement alters\nPHMSA’s right of access, entry, inspection, and information gathering or PHMSA’s authority to\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2024-033-NOPV et al.\nPage 3\nbring enforcement actions against Respondents pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, the\nregulations and orders issued thereunder, or any other provision of Federal or State law.\n7. For all transfers of ownership or operating responsibility of Respondents’ pipeline\nsystem referenced herein, Respondents will provide a copy of this Agreement to the prospective\ntransferee at least 30 days prior to such transfer. Respondents will provide written notice of the\ntransfer to the Director no later than 60 days after the transfer occurs.\n8. This Agreement does not waive or modify any Federal, State, or local laws or\nregulations that are applicable to Respondents’ pipeline systems. This Agreement is not a permit,\nor a modification of any permit, under any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations.\nRespondents remain responsible for achieving and maintaining compliance with all applicable\nFederal, State, and local laws, regulations and permits.\n9. This Agreement does not create rights in, or grant any cause of action to, any third\nparty not party to this Agreement. The U.S. Department of Transportation is not liable for any\ninjuries or damages to persons or property arising from acts or omissions of Respondents or their\nofficers, employees, or agents carrying out the work required by this Agreement. Respondents\nagree to hold harmless the U.S. Department of Transportation, its officers, employees, agents,\nand representatives from any and all causes of action arising from any acts or omissions of\nRespondents or their contractors in carrying out any work required by this Agreement.\n10. Except as set forth herein, this Agreement does not constitute a finding of\nviolation of any other federal law or regulation and may not be used in any civil proceeding of\nany kind as evidence or proof of any fact, fault or liability, or as evidence of a violation of any\nlaw, rule, regulation, or requirement, except in a proceeding to enforce the provisions of this\nAgreement or in future PHMSA enforcement actions.\nII. Findings of Violation:\nA. CPF No. 1-2024-033-NOPV\n11. Item 2 - 49 CFR § 195.402(a): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to conduct\nan annual review of its operations and maintenance manual at intervals not exceeding 15 months\nbut at least once each calendar year for calendar years 2020, 2021, and 2022. CITGO does not\ncontest the allegation of violation as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-033-NOPV. As such, PHMSA\nfinds a violation of 49 CFR § 195.402(a).\n12. Item 3 - 49 CFR § 195.402(c)(13): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to\nconduct periodic reviews of the work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness\nof the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance, taking corrective action where\ndeficiencies are found, throughout calendar years 2020, 2021, and 2022. CITGO does not contest\nthe allegation of violation as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-033-NOPV. As such, PHMSA finds a\nviolation of 49 CFR § 195.402(c)(13).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2024-033-NOPV et al.\nPage 4\n13. Item 4 - 49 CFR § 195.402(d)(5): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to\nconduct periodic reviews of operator personnel responses to determine the effectiveness of the\nprocedures controlling abnormal operation, taking corrective actions where deficiencies are\nfound, in calendar years 2020, 2021, and 2022. CITGO does not contest the allegation of\nviolation as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-033-NOPV. As such, PHMSA finds a violation of 49\nCFR § 195.402(d)(5).\n14. Item 5 - 49 CFR § 195.403(c): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to require\nand verify that its supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of that portion of the emergency\nresponse procedures established under section 195.402 for which they are responsible for\nensuring compliance during calendar years 2020 through 2022. CITGO does not contest the\nallegation of violation as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-033-NOPV. As such, PHMSA finds a\nviolation of 49 CFR § 195.403(c).\n15. Item 6 - 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(3): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to test\nand verify its internal communication plan to provide adequate means for manual operation of\nthe pipeline safely, at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months,\nduring calendar years 2020 and 2021 at its Sour Lake, Texas pipeline facilities. Specifically,\nCITGO used information from actual events in lieu of scheduled testing. As such, PHMSA finds\na violation of 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(3).\nB. CPF No. 1-2024-035-NOPV\n16. The Parties agree that there are no findings of violation associated with CPF No.\n1-2024-035-NOPV.\nC. CPF No. 1-2024-036-NOPV\n17. Item 6 - 49 CFR § 195.402(a): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to follow\nits manual of written procedures. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to follow its\nO&M Manual Section K– Inspection and Maintenance, dated August 31, 2022 (O&M – Section\nK) regarding installation of cathodic protection test leads. CITGO does not contest the allegation\nof violation as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-036-NOPV. As such, PHMSA finds a violation of 49\nCFR § 195.402(a).\nD. CPF No. 1-2024-037-NOPV\n18. Item 7 - 49 CFR § 195.434: The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to post signs\nvisible to the public around each breakout tank area and gate containing telephone numbers\nwhere the operator can be reached at all times at its Niles, Michigan facility. CITGO does not\ncontest the allegation of violation as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-037-NOPV. As such, PHMSA\nfinds a violation of 49 CFR § 195.434.\n19. Item 10 - 49 CFR § 195.49: The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to submit its\nannual report accurately to include all PHMSA-jurisdictional pipelines at its Niles, Michigan\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2024-033-NOPV et al.\nPage 5\nfacility for calendar year 2022. CITGO agrees that the pipelines referenced in this Item are\nPHMSA-regulated pipelines. As such, PHMSA finds a violation of 49 CFR § 195.49.\n20. Item 11 - 49 CFR § 195.583(a): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to inspect\neach pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of\natmospheric corrosion at least once every 3 years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to inspect exposed pipe at the required\nintervals during its 2020 triennial inspection. CITGO does not contest the allegation of violation\nas alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-037-NOPV. As such, PHMSA finds a violation of 49 CFR §\n195.583(a).\nE. CPF No. 1-2024-038-NOPV\n21. Item 7 - 49 CFR § 195.410(a)(1): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to\nmaintain line markers at each public road crossing so that the location of the pipeline is\naccurately known. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to maintain line markers at\nits public road crossing in the North and South directions of Interstate 595-East and North\nFederal Highway, and at each railroad crossing in the North and South directions of the Eller\nDrive railroad, located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. CITGO does not contest the allegation of\nviolation as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-038-NOPV. As such, PHMSA finds a violation of 49\nCFR § 195.410(a)(1).\n22. Item 8 - 49 CFR § 195.420(b): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to inspect\nat least twice each calendar year, but at intervals not exceeding 7 ½ months, each valve to\ndetermine that it is functioning properly. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to\ninspect each mainline valve during calendar years 2020, 2021, and 2022. CITGO does not\ncontest the allegation of violation as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-038-NOPV. As such, PHMSA\nfinds a violation of 49 CFR § 195.420(b).\n23. Item 11 - 49 CFR § 195.583(a): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to inspect\neach pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of\natmospheric corrosion at least once every 3 years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline\nthat is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion during its 2019 and\n2022 calendar year inspections. CITGO does not contest the allegation of violation as alleged in\nCPF No. 1-2024-038-NOPV. As such, PHMSA finds a violation of 49 CFR § 195.583(a).\n24. Each Item in Section II will be considered by PHMSA as a prior offense in any\nfuture PHMSA enforcement action taken against Respondents.\nIII. Warning Items:\nA. CPF No. 1-2024-033-NOPV\n25. Item 1 - 49 CFR § 195.402(a): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to follow\nits manual of written procedures. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to follow its\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2024-033-NOPV et al.\nPage 6\nO&M Manual, Section J – Inspection and Maintenance, dated September 23, 2022 (OM –\nSection J) for conducting its annual firefighting extinguisher inspections for calendar years 2021\nthrough 2023 pursuant to § 195.430(a). This Item was brought as a warning and does not\nconstitute a finding of violation. CITGO accepts the warning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-033-\nNOPV.\nB. CPF No. 1-2024-035-NOPV\n26. Item 2 - 49 CFR § 195.402(a): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to follow\nits manual of written procedures. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to follow its\nOM Manual - Section J - Inspection and Maintenance, dated September 23, 2022 (OM – Section\nJ) for documenting its routine in-service inspections of breakout tanks conducted pursuant to\nsection 195.432(b). This Item was brought as a warning and does not constitute a finding of\nviolation. CITGO accepts the warning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-035-NOPV.\n27. Item 4 - 49 CFR § 195.402(a): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to conduct\nan annual review of its operations and maintenance manual at intervals not exceeding 15 months\nbut at least once each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to\nconduct an annual review of its operations and maintenance manual for calendar years 2020,\n2021, and 2022. This Item was brought as a warning and does not constitute a finding of\nviolation. CITGO accepts the warning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-035-NOPV.\n28. Item 5 - 49 CFR § 195.402(c)(13): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to\nconduct periodic reviews of the work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness\nof the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and taking corrective action where\ndeficiencies are found. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to provide records or\nother documentation that demonstrated the work done by operator personnel was reviewed to\ndetermine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operations, or what corrective\nactions were taken if any deficiencies were found, in calendar years 2020, 2021, and 2022. This\nItem was brought as a warning and does not constitute a finding of violation. CITGO accepts the\nwarning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-035-NOPV.\n29. Item 6 - 49 CFR § 195.403(c): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to require\nand verify that its supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of that portion of the emergency\nresponse procedures established under section 195.402 for which they are responsible for\nensuring compliance. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to provide records\ndemonstrating compliance with section 195.403(c) for calendar years 2018 through 2022. This\nItem was brought as a warning and does not constitute a finding of violation. CITGO accepts the\nwarning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-035-NOPV\n30. Item 8 - 49 CFR § 195.428(a): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to inspect\nand test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure\ncontrol equipment at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to\ndetermine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from\nthe standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to document its overpressure relief valve\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2024-033-NOPV et al.\nPage 7\ninspections for calendar years 2021 through 2023. This Item was brought as a warning and does\nnot constitute a finding of violation. CITGO accepts the warning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-\n035-NOPV.\n31. Item 9 - 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(3): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to test\nand verify its internal communication plan to provide adequate means for manual operation of\nthe pipeline safely, at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to provide records that demonstrate it tested\nand verified its internal communication plan at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not\nto exceed 15 months during calendar years 2020 and 2021 at its Linden, New Jersey pipeline\nfacility. This Item was brought as a warning and does not constitute a finding of violation.\nCITGO accepts the warning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-035-NOPV.\n32. Item 10 - 49 CFR § 195.589(c): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to\nmaintain records of each atmospheric corrosion inspection required by section 195.583(a) in\nsufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that corrosion\nrequiring control measures does not exist. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to\nhave records for its calendar year 2020 and 2023 atmospheric corrosion inspections. This Item\nwas brought as a warning and does not constitute a finding of violation. CITGO accepts the\nwarning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-035-NOPV.\n33. Item 11 - 49 CFR § 195.589(c): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to\nmaintain a record of each analysis, check, demonstration, examination, inspection, investigation,\nreview, survey, and test required by subpart H of Part 195 in sufficient detail to demonstrate the\nadequacy of corrosion control measures or that corrosion requiring control measures does not\nexist. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to maintain tank bottom lining\ninstallation records on nine aboveground breakout tanks built to API Standard 650 pursuant to\nAPI RP 652. This Item was brought as a warning and does not constitute a finding of violation.\nCITGO accepts the warning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-035-NOPV.\nC. CPF No. 1-2024-036-NOPV\n34. Item 1 - 49 CFR § 194.105(b)(3): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to\nconduct its worst case discharge calculations. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed\nto conduct the worst case discharge calculations for its breakout tanks at the Toledo, Ohio\nfacilities. This Item was brought as a warning and does not constitute a finding of violation.\nCITGO accepts the warning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-036-NOPV.\n35. Item 3 - 49 CFR § 195.402(a): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to follow\nits manual of written procedures. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to follow its\nO&M Manual Section J– Inspection and Maintenance, dated September 23, 2022 (O&M -\nSection J) for conducting its annual firefighting extinguisher inspections for calendar years 2020\nthrough 2022 pursuant to section 195.430(a). This Item was brought as a warning and does not\nconstitute a finding of violation. CITGO accepts the warning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-036-\nNOPV.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2024-033-NOPV et al.\nPage 8\n36. Item 4 - 49 CFR § 195.402(a): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to conduct\nan annual review of its operations and maintenance manual at intervals not exceeding 15 months\nbut at least once each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to\nconduct an annual review of its operations and maintenance manual for calendar years 2020,\n2021, and 2022. This Item was brought as a warning and does not constitute a finding of\nviolation. CITGO accepts the warning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-036-NOPV.\n37. Item 5 - 49 CFR § 195.402(a): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to follow\nits manual of written procedures. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to follow its\nO&M Manual Section J– Inspection and Maintenance, dated September 23, 2022 (O&M –\nSection J) for conducting its monthly firefighting extinguisher inspections in accordance with\nsection 195.430(a). This Item was brought as a warning and does not constitute a finding of\nviolation. CITGO accepts the warning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-036-NOPV.\n38. Item 7 - 49 CFR § 195.402(c)(13): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to\nconduct periodic reviews of the work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness\nof the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and taking corrective action where\ndeficiencies are found. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to provide records or\nother documentation that demonstrated the work done by operator personnel was reviewed to\ndetermine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operations, or what corrective\nactions were taken if any deficiencies were found, in calendar years 2020, 2021, and 2022. This\nItem was brought as a warning and does not constitute a finding of violation. CITGO accepts the\nwarning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-036-NOPV.\n39. Item 9 - 49 CFR § 195.428(a): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to inspect\nand test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure\ncontrol equipment at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to\ndetermine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from\nthe standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to document its overpressure relief valve\ninspections for calendar years 2021 through 2023. This Item was brought as a warning and does\nnot constitute a finding of violation. CITGO accepts the warning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-\n036-NOPV.\n40. Item 10 - 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(3): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to test\nand verify its internal communication plan to provide adequate means for manual operation of\nthe pipeline safely, at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to provide records that demonstrate it tested\nand verified its internal communication plan at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not\nto exceed 15 months during calendar years 2020 and 2021 at its Toledo, Ohio pipeline facility.\nThis Item was brought as a warning and does not constitute a finding of violation. CITGO\naccepts the warning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-036-NOPV.\nD. CPF No. 1-2024-037-NOPV\n41. Item 1 - 49 CFR § 195.402(a): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2024-033-NOPV et al.\nPage 9\ncomplete a review of its written procedures at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least\nonce each calendar year to ensure that the emergency response manual was effective.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to conduct a 2021 calendar year annual\nreview of its emergency manual for the Niles, Michigan facility at the required interval. This\nItem was brought as a warning and does not constitute a finding of violation. CITGO accepts the\nwarning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-037-NOPV.\n42. Item 2 - 49 CFR § 195.402(a): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to follow\nits manual of written procedures. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to follow its\nO&M Manual, Section J – Inspection and Maintenance, dated September 23, 2022 (OM –\nSection J) for conducting its annual firefighting extinguisher inspections for calendar years 2021\nthrough 2023 pursuant to section 195.430(a). This Item was brought as a warning and does not\nconstitute a finding of violation. CITGO accepts the warning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-037-\nNOPV.\n43. Item 3 - 49 CFR § 195.402(a): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to conduct\nan annual review of its operations and maintenance manual at intervals not exceeding 15 months\nbut at least once each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to\nconduct an annual review of its operations and maintenance manual for calendar years 2020,\n2021, and 2022. This Item was brought as a warning and does not constitute a finding of\nviolation. CITGO accepts the warning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-037-NOPV.\n44. Item 4 - 49 CFR § 195.402(c)(13): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to\nconduct periodic reviews of the work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness\nof the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and taking corrective action where\ndeficiencies are found. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to provide records or\nother documentation that demonstrated the work done by operator personnel was reviewed for\neffectiveness or what corrective actions were taken if any deficiencies were found in calendar\nyears 2020, 2021, and 2022. This Item was brought as a warning and does not constitute a\nfinding of violation. CITGO accepts the warning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-037-NOPV.\n45. Item 6 - 49 CFR § 195.428(a): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to inspect\nand test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure\ncontrol equipment at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to\ndetermine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from\nthe standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to document its overpressure relief valve\ninspections during calendar years 2021 through 2023. This Item was brought as a warning and\ndoes not constitute a finding of violation. CITGO accepts the warning as alleged in CPF No. 1-\n2024-037-NOPV.\n46. Item 9 - 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(3): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to test\nand verify its internal communication plan to provide adequate means for manual operation of\nthe pipeline safely, at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to test and verify its internal communication\nat least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months during calendar years\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2024-033-NOPV et al.\nPage 10\n2020 and 2021 at its Niles, Michigan pipeline facility. This Item was brought as a warning and\ndoes not constitute a finding of violation. CITGO accepts the warning as alleged in CPF No. 1-\n2024-037-NOPV.\nE. CPF No. 1-2024-038-NOPV\n47. Item 2 - 49 CFR § 195.402(a): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to\ncomplete a review of its written procedures at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least\nonce each calendar year to ensure that the emergency response manual was effective.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to conduct its 2021 calendar year annual\nreview of its emergency manual for the Port Everglades, Florida facility at the required interval.\nThis Item was brought as a warning and does not constitute a finding of violation. CITGO\naccepts the warning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-038-NOPV.\n48. Item 3 - 49 CFR § 195.402(a): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to conduct\nan annual review of its operations and maintenance manual at intervals not exceeding 15 months\nbut at least once each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to\nconduct an annual review of its operations and maintenance manual for calendar years 2020,\n2021, and 2022. This Item was brought as a warning and does not constitute a finding of\nviolation. CITGO accepts the warning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-038-NOPV.\n49. Item 4 - 49 CFR § 195.402(c)(13): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to\nconduct periodic reviews of the work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness\nof the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and taking corrective action where\ndeficiencies are found. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to provide records or\nother documentation that demonstrated the work done by operator personnel was reviewed for\neffectiveness or what corrective actions were taken if any deficiencies were found in calendar\nyears 2020, 2021, and 2022. This Item was brought as a warning and does not constitute a\nfinding of violation. CITGO accepts the warning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-038-NOPV.\n50. Item 5 - 49 CFR § 195.403(c): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to require\nand verify that its supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of that portion of the emergency\nresponse procedures established under section 195.402 for which they are responsible for\nensuring compliance. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to provide records\ndemonstrating compliance during calendar years 2020 through 2022. This Item was brought as a\nwarning and does not constitute a finding of violation. CITGO accepts the warning as alleged in\nCPF No. 1-2024-038-NOPV.\n51. Item 9 - 49 CFR § 195.428(a): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to\ndocument its overpressure relief valve inspections to determine that the valves are functioning\nproperly, are in good mechanical condition, and are adequate from the standpoint of capacity and\nreliability of operation for the service in which it is used. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nCITGO failed to document its overpressure relief valve inspections during calendar years 2021\nthrough 2023. This Item was brought as a warning and does not constitute a finding of violation.\nCITGO accepts the warning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-038-NOPV.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2024-033-NOPV et al.\nPage 11\n52. Item 10 - 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(3): The Notice alleged that CITGO failed to test\nand verify its internal communication plan to provide adequate means for manual operation of\nthe pipeline safely, at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that CITGO failed to test and verify its internal communication\nplan during calendar years 2020 and 2021 at its Port Everglades, Florida pipeline facility. This\nItem was brought as a warning and does not constitute a finding of violation. CITGO accepts the\nwarning as alleged in CPF No. 1-2024-038-NOPV.\n53. For the War","truncated":true,"body_characters":62169}