{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320045017","title":"SUPERIOR REFINING COMPANY LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2004-07-16","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(c)(3), 195.403(b)(1), 195.404(a), 195.404(c)(3), 195.416(a), 195.416(j), 195.418(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320045017.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320045017.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320045017","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320045017","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SUPERIOR REFINING COMPANY LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(c)(3),  195.403(b)(1),  195.404(a),  195.404(c)(3),  195.416(a),  195.416(j),  195.418(a). The case was opened on 2004-07-16 and is reported as closed as of 2007-10-22. Proposed civil penalty: $9,000. Assessed civil penalty: $9,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320045017_Final Order_10222007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320045017/320045017_Final%20Order_10222007.pdf\n\n320045017_final order_10222007_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320045017/320045017_final%20order_10222007_text.pdf\n\n320045017_final order_10222007_text.pdf\n\nU S Department\nof Trgnsportatton\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration OCT 2 2 2OOS\n1200 New Jersey Ave S E\nWashington DC 20590\nMr. W. M. Hulse\nPresident\nMurphy Oil USA, Inc.\n200 Peach Street\nEl Dorado, AR 71730\nRe: CPF No. 3-2004-5017\nDear Mr. Hulse:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in\nthe above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $9, 000.\nI acknowledge receipt of your wire transfer of $9, 000 on August 13, 2004, and accept it as\npayment in full of the civil penalty assessed herein The Final Order also finds that you have\ncompleted the actions specified in the Notice required to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations and that you have addressed the inadequacies in your procedures that were cited in\nthe Notice of Amendment. Therefore, this case is now closed. Your receipt of the Final Order\nconstitutes service of that document under 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 5.\nSincerely,\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\ncc: Ivan Huntoon\nDirector, Central Region, PHMSA\nEnclosure\nCERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\nIn the Matter of\nMurphy Oil USA, Inc.\n,\nRespondent\nCPF No. 3-2004-5017\nFINAL ORDER\nOn July 16, 2004, in accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 207, the Director, Central Region, Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), issued to Respondent a Notice of\nProbable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) following\nan onsite inspection of Respondent's facilities and records in Superior, Wisconsin. The Notice\nproposed finding that Respondent committed violations of 49 C. F. R. Part 195, assessing a civil\npenalty of $9, 000 for the alleged violations, and ordering Respondent to take certain measures to\ncorrect the alleged violations. The Notice also alleged certain inadequacies in Respondent's\noperating and maintenance procedures and proposed, in accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 237,\nthat they be revised, The Notice further warned that Respondent had committed certain probable\nviolations of 49 C. F. R. Part 195 and advised Respondent to take appropriate corrective action,\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated August 12, 2004. Respondent did not contest\nthe allegations in the Notice and submitted a wire transfer in the amount of the proposed civil\npenalty ($9, 000), thereby waiving further rights to respond and authorizing the entry of this Final\nOrder. Respondent also provided information concerning the corrective measures it had taken\nand submitted copies of its amended procedures.\nPursuant to 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 213 and 49 U. S. C. $ 60122, I hereby find that Respondent violated\nthe following sections of 49 C. F. R. Part 195, as more fully described in the Notice:\n\n\n\nItem 2. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F, R. ) 195. 403(b)(1),\nwhich states:\ng 195. 403. Emergency response training.\n(a)\"\"\n(b) At intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at\nleast once each calendar year, each operator shall:\n(1) Review with personnel their performance in meeting\nthe objectives of the training program set forth in\n'\nparagraph (a) of this section;. . . .\nSpecifically, Item 2 alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 403(b)(1) by failing to\nreview with personnel their performance in meeting the objectives of the training program. I\nfind that Respondent did not review with employees their annual performance nor did records\nexist to show how the employees would have met the objectives of their assigned tasks and\nRespondent's operating and maintenance procedures.\nItem 3. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. ) 195. 404(a), which states:\ng 195. 404. Maps and records.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of\nits pipeline systems that include at least the following information:\n(3) The maximum operating pressure of each pipeline;\n(4) The diameter, grade, type and nominal wall thickness of all pipe.\nSpecifically, Item 3 of the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R, $195. 404(a) by\nfailing to maintain maps and records that included information regarding the maximum operating\npressure (MOP) of each pipeline and its diameter, grade, type, and nominal wall thickness. I find\nthat Respondent did not have records to support how the MOP for each segment of the system\nwas established, nor did it have pipe and component data, calculations, and test record\ninformation to support the stated MOP for each of the 6-inch, 8-inch, and 10-inch nominal\ndiameter pipeline segments and their associated components.\nItem 6. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F, R, $ 195. 416(j), which states:\n$195. 416. External corrosion control.\n(a)\n(j) For aboveground breakout tanks where corrosion\nThe violations date to the 2001 inspection and refer to the regulations in effect at that time.\n\n\n\nof the tank bottom is controlled by a cathodic protection system, the cathodic\nprotection system must be inspected to ensure it is operated and maintained in\naccordance with API Recommended Practice 651, unless the operator notes in the\nprocedure manual ($ 195. 402(c)) why compliance with all or certain provisions of\nAPI Recommended Practice 651 is not necessary for the safety of a particular\nbreakout tank.\nSpecifically, Item 6 of the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C F. R. ) 195. 416(j) by\nfailing to inspect and monitor the cathodic protection for an aboveground breakout tank where\nthe tank bottom was cathodically protected. I find that Respondent did not inspect and monitor\nthe cathodic protection for Tank 25 during the three calendar years preceding the PHMSA\ninspection.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent. Having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $9, 000, which amount has already been paid by\nRespondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nWith respect to Item 3, the Notice proposed a compliance order for Respondent's failure to\nmaintain records to support how the MOP for each segment of the system was established.\nUnder 49 U, S. C. $ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids\nor who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under chapter 601. The Director, Central Region, PHMSA has indicated\nthat Respondent has provided information confirming the MOP for each pipeline segment and\nhas established records identifying information related to the pipe and component specifications\nand pressure test records. Since compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation, it is\nmnecessary to include compliance terms in this Order.\nAMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES\nWith respect to Item 1, the Notice alleged inadequacies in Respondent's operating and\nmaintenance procedures and proposed to require amendment of Respondent's procedures to\ncomply with the requirements of Part 195. In its response, Respondent submitted copies of its\namended procedures, which the Director, Central Region, OPS has reviewed. The Director has\ndetermined that Respondent has amended its procedures for maintenance and normal operations\nto provide better clarity and direction to employees. Based on the results of this review, I find\nthat Respondent's original procedures, as described in the Notice, were inadequate, but that\nRespondent has corrected the identified inadequacies. Therefore, no need exists to issue an order\ndirecting amendment.\n\n\n\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 4, 5 and 7, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to\nbe warning items. The warnings were as follows:\nItem 4. 49 C. F, R. $ 195. 404(c)(3) — failure to maintain records of each required\ninspection for the applicable period. The Notice alleged that Respondent did not\nhave records of annual inspections of the overfill protection systems for tanks 21,\n22, 23, and 25 for the 2000-2001 period;\nItem 5. 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 416(a) — failure to conduct annual cathodic protection\ntesting. The Notice alleged that Respondent did not have records demonstrating\nthe adequacy of cathodic protection for the specified area along the heavy oil\npipeline during the three calendar years preceding the PHMSA inspection; and\nItem 7. 49 C. F. R. ) 195. 418(a) — failure to investigate the potential corrosive\neffect of hazardous liquids transported. The Notice alleged that Respondent did\nnot have records supporting the establishment of an internal corrosion control\nprogram that included analysis and control of the potential corrosive effects of the\nthree types of oil being transported.\nRespondent presented information in its Response showing that it had initiated certain actions to\naddress the cited items. Having considered such information, I find, pursuant to 49 C, F. R. $\n190. 205, that probable violations of 49 C. F. R. $ 195, 404(c)(3) (Notice Item 4), 49 C. F. R. $\n195. 416(a) (Notice Item 5), and 49 C. F. R. 195. 418(a) (Notice Item 6) have occurred and\nRespondent is hereby advised to correct such conditions. In the event that OPS finds a violation\nfor any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future\nenforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt.\nOCT 2 2 2007\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nDate Issued","truncated":false,"body_characters":10491}