{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320075002","title":"NUSTAR PIPELINE OPERATING PARTNERSHIP L.P. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2007-02-08","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.412(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320075002.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320075002.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320075002","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320075002","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving NUSTAR PIPELINE OPERATING PARTNERSHIP L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.412(a). The case was opened on 2007-02-08 and is reported as closed as of 2011-02-10. Proposed civil penalty: $38,000. Assessed civil penalty: $38,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320075002_Closure Letter_02102011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075002/320075002_Closure%20Letter_02102011.pdf\n\n320075002_Closure Letter_02102011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075002/320075002_Closure%20Letter_02102011_text.pdf\n\n320075002_FinalOrder_02052009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075002/320075002_FinalOrder_02052009.pdf\n\n320075002_FinalOrder_02052009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075002/320075002_FinalOrder_02052009_text.pdf\n\n320075002_Notice Letter_02082007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075002/320075002_Notice%20Letter_02082007.pdf\n\n320075002_Operator Response to notice letter_03282007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320075002/320075002_Operator%20Response%20to%20notice%20letter_03282007.pdf\n\n320075002_FinalOrder_02052009_text.pdf\n\nMr. Todd Denton\nVice President, Regional Operations\nNuStar Energy, L.P.\n2330 N. Loop 1604 West\nSan Antonio, TX 78248-4512\nRe: CPF No. 3-2007-5002\nDear Mr. Denton:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation,\nassesses a civil penalty of $38,000, and specifies actions that need to be taken by NuStar to\ncomply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final\nOrder. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed,\nas determined by the Director, Central Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Your\nreceipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ivan A. Huntoon, Director, Central Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 0390 0005 6163 2621]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n______________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nNuStar Energy, L.P. ) CPF No. 3-2007-5002\n(f/k/a Valero, L.P.), )\n)\nRespondent. )\n______________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween May 15-17, June 12-14, June 19-22, and August 21-24, 2006, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §\n60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site safety inspection of the\ninterstate hazardous liquid pipeline facilities of Valero, L.P. (Valero or Respondent), located in\nMissouri, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Nebraska, and known as the Kaneb Pipeline. On or around\nApril 1, 2007, Valero changed its name to NuStar Energy, L.P., and currently operates the line\nthrough its subsidiary, NuStar Pipeline Operating Partnership, L.P. NuStar Energy is a major\nenergy company operating over 4,000 miles of crude oil and petroleum product pipelines\nthroughout the United States.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated February 8, 2007, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that Respondent had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195,\nassessing a civil penalty of $38,000, and requiring Valero to take certain measures to correct the\nviolations. The Notice also proposed finding that Respondent had committed another probable\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and warning Valero to take appropriate corrective action or be\nsubject to future enforcement action.\nBy letter dated March 28, 2007, Valero1 responded to the Notice (Response). The company\ncontested the allegations in part, requested that OPS reduce or eliminate the civil penalty, and\nasked that OPS modify or withdraw the compliance order. Respondent did not request a hearing\nand therefore has waived its right to one.\n1 Valero responded to the Notice through its then-operating subsidiary, Kaneb Pipe Line Operating Partnership, L.P.\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a), which states:\n§ 195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable\nwaters.\n(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least\n26 times each calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to\neach pipeline right-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking, driving,\nflying or other appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way….\nThe Notice alleged that Valero failed to conduct adequate inspections of the surface conditions\nof its anhydrous ammonia pipeline rights-of-way in the following four locations:\n1) At four road crossings between Mile Posts (MP) 41.4 and 45.4 near Mountain View,\n2) 3) 4) Missouri;\nMP 47.9 near Litchfield, Illinois;\nMP 115.1 near Trillia, Illinois; and\nMP 33.0 near Arlington, Nebraska.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Valero relied upon aerial patrols to inspect these rights-of-\nway but was unable to effectively “inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to” them from\nthe air due to overgrown vegetation.\nIn its Response, Valero contested the allegation, arguing (1) that although the rights-of-way\nmight appear to be obstructed from the ground, they were clearly visible from the air; 2) that its\ncurrent patrols were adequate to identify third-party encroachments; and 3) some vegetation in\nthe rights-of-way might be useful in aerial inspections.2\nUpon review, I find these arguments unpersuasive. Using aerial patrols for these four rights-of-\nway as the sole method of inspection was inappropriate under § 195.412(a). The purpose of that\nregulation is to ensure that operators regularly inspect the surface conditions of their pipeline\nrights-of-way, by appropriate means, in order to detect encroachments and various other threats\nto the integrity of their facilities. If an operator cannot view surface conditions, then aerial\npatrols are ineffective. Respondent’s rights-of-way in these locations were covered in dense\novergrowth, as shown in Valero’s own photographs of the area.3 Relying solely on aerial patrols\nis inappropriate in areas where such overgrowth prevented Valero from observing surface\nconditions and potential damage to its facilities or encroachments to its rights-of-way.\nRespondent could have used ground patrols as an additional method of inspection but elected not\nto do so.\n2 In its Response, Valero wrote, “….[I]t may actually be preferable to maintain some vegetation in the vicinity of the\npipeline in order to help identify small leaks. As noted, ammonia may not provide a direct visual result; however,\nammonia leaks can affect the foliage in the vicinity, meaning that it is easier for the pilot to visually identify small\nleaks through foliage changes rather than through direct visual observation.” Response, at 2.\n3 Response, Exhibit A.\n\n\n\n3\nRespondent’s assertion that a right-of-way for an anhydrous ammonia pipeline does not need to\nbe cleared as extensively as a petroleum pipeline is not supported by the regulations.\nThe pipeline safety regulations require patrols in order to reduce the risk of third-party\nencroachments and other threats to the pipeline in advance of a leak. The regulations do not\ncarve out exceptions to the required patrols based on the type of hazardous product traveling\nthrough the pipe. Although a release of anhydrous ammonia might alter the color of foliage,\nrelying on reports of an odor or a discoloration would only identify existing leaks but not address\nunauthorized activities along the right-of-way.\nFinally, Respondent’s post-inspection actions cannot serve to cure or reduce the violation. At the\ntime of the inspection, these four rights-of-way were obscured by overgrown vegetation.\nAlthough Respondent has since cleared them, as depicted in the photographs provided to OPS,\nValero had an ongoing obligation to keep its rights-of-ways clear without necessitating a visit\nfrom an OPS inspector. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) by\nfailing to adequately inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to its pipeline rights-of-way in\nthe four locations described above.\nThese findings of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s ability to pay the penalty and any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $38,000 for Respondent’s violations of 49 C.F.R. §\n195.412(a), as set forth in Item 2 of the Notice and discussed more fully above. In its Response,\nValero requested that OPS review the penalty assessment and either waive or reduce the amount\non account of the company’s post-inspection actions to clear the rights-of-way, its alleged good\nfaith compliance with the regulations, and its proactive measures to improve its right-of-way\nprogram. Respondent also asserted that no adverse environmental impacts had occurred on\naccount of the alleged violation.\n\n\n\n4\nI find these arguments unpersuasive for several reasons. First, while Respondent may have acted\npromptly to correct the violations after the inspection occurred, Respondent failed to regularly\ninspect its rights-of-way by an appropriate method, as required by § 195.412(a). The rights-of-\nway should have been either patrolled by additional methods or kept cleared for aerial inspection\nwithout the necessity of an inspector’s visit.\nAs for Respondent's good faith argument, PHMSA does indeed consider an operator's good faith\nefforts to achieve compliance at the time the agency proposes a civil penalty amount. For\nexample, if an operator has taken reasonable steps to comply with a particular regulation but\nsuch efforts are subsequently deemed insufficient as the result of an inspection, PHMSA may\nconsider such actions as a mitigating factor in calculating a civil penalty. Similarly, if an operator\nacts on the basis of an incorrect, but otherwise reasonable, interpretation of a regulation, the\nagency may propose a lower penalty than would otherwise be assessed. In this case, however,\nRespondent failed to demonstrate that its patrols were conducted in a good faith effort to achieve\ncompliance. Respondent was aware of the overgrowth in the rights-of-way yet neglected to take\nappropriate pre-inspection actions, either by adding ground patrols or other inspection methods\nor by more thoroughly or by frequently clearing the rights-of-way. In addition, I would note that\nValero was issued a warning in 2004 to clear its rights-of-way on this same line.4\nWhile it is fortunate that a release did not occur on the Kaneb Pipe Line while the rights-of-way\nwere covered by vegetative growth, this is not a basis upon which to reduce or eliminate the civil\npenalty. Without consistent and effective patrols of the surface conditions of pipeline rights-of-\nway, operators may be unaware of third-party encroachments or other damage that could lead to\npipeline accidents. It is particularly important that Respondent clear the Kaneb Pipeline rights-\nof-way since many of them are located near roads, highways, and rivers. In addition, one of the\nfour rights-of-way cited above is located at a foreign pipeline crossing, thereby further increasing\nthe need for appropriate surface inspections.\nBased upon the foregoing, I find that Respondent has not demonstrated any circumstances\njustifying a reduction or waiver of the civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record\nand considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $38,000.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $38,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United\nStates District Court.\n4 CPF No. 3-2004-5034W.\n\n\n\n5\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice also proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 2 for violation of 49 C.F.R. §\n195.412(a). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of\nhazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 40 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent, now known as NuStar Energy, L.P., is ordered\nto take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable\nto its operations. Respondent must-\n1. Provide a plan and schedule of action for clearing the rights-of-way where aerial\npatrolling is utilized. The plan must be provided to the Director, Central Region, Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 901 Locust Street, Room 462, Kansas\nCity, MO 64106.\n2. Identify sections of pipeline rights-of-way along NuStar’s anhydrous ammonia line in\nMissouri, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Nebraska that are overgrown and will remain\novergrown for a period of time while awaiting clearing. For these sections, Respondent\nmust provide an alternative means to aerial patrolling in order to comply with § 195.412.\n3. Provide the plan and schedule to the Director within 30 days from the date of the receipt\nof the Final Order.\n4. Implement the plan and schedule required by Items 1 and 2 of this Compliance Order\nwithin 60 days from the date of the receipt of the Final Order.\n5. Maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this\nCompliance Order and submit the total to the Director, Central Region. Costs shall be\nreported in two categories; 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans,\nprocedures, studies, and analyses and 2) total costs associated with replacements,\nadditions, and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent demonstrating good cause for an extension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not\nto exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 1, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 195 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this item is considered to be a\nwarning item. The warning was for:\n\n\n\n6\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(d)(5) (Notice Item 1) ─ Valero’s alleged failure to follow its\noperating and maintenance procedures by neglecting to periodically review\npersonnel responses during abnormal operating conditions for the years 2004 and\n2005.\nValero did not present any explanation in its Response regarding this allegation. Having\nconsidered such information, I find, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, that a probable violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(d)(5) (Notice Item 1) occurred as of the date of the inspection. NuStar\nEnergy is hereby advised to review and correct such conditions. In the event that OPS finds a\nviolation for this item in a subsequent inspection, NuStar Energy may be subject to future\nenforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent’s receipt of this\nFinal Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. All other terms of this order,\nincluding any required corrective action, shall remain in full force and effect unless the Associate\nAdministrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be\neffective upon receipt.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n320075002_Closure Letter_02102011_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nFebruary 10, 2011\nMr. Todd Denton,\nVice President, Regional Operations\nNuStar Pipeline Operating Partnership L.P.\n2330 N. Loop 1604 West\nSan Antonio, TX 78248-4512\nCPF 3-2007-5002\nDear Mr. Denton:\nOn February 5, 2009, the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Valero, L.P a Final Order, including a Civil Penalty and Compliance Order in the\nabove-referenced case. NuStar Energy, LP. is the current operator responsive to this Order. The\nCompliance Order required that NuStar: 1) provide a plan and schedule of action for clearing the\nright-of-way (ROW) where aerial patrolling is utilized, 2) identify sections of the pipeline ROW\nalong NuStar’s anhydrous ammonia line in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Nebraska that\nare overgrown and perform an alternative method of patrolling. Based on payment of the Civil\nPenalty and a review of the documentation you provided on March 9, 2009 and January 25,\n2011, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nDavid Barrett\nDirector, Central Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n320075002_Notice Letter_02082007.pdf\n\n@\nU.S. Deporlrnent\nof Tronsportotion\nPipellne ond\nHqzordous l$qterlols Sotefy\nAdmlnlstrqflon\n901 Locust Street, Suite 462\nKansas City, MO 64106-2641\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nFebruary 8,2007\nMr. Rodney Reese\nVice President, Regional Operations\nValero L.P.\nOne Valero Way\nMail Stop C2G-140\nSan Antonio, TX 7 8249 -1616\ncPF 3-2007-5002\nDear Mr. Reese:\nOn May 15-17, June 12-14, Jwe 19-22 and August 2l-24,2006, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601\nof 49 United States Code inspected your Kaneb Pipe Line Company (Kaneb) anhydrous\nammonia pipeline facilities and records in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Nebraska.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and\nthe probable violation(s) are:\n1) S195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall pr€pare and follow for each pipeline system a\nmanual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and\nmaintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies.\n\n\n\n(d) Abnormal operation. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this section\nmust include procedures for the following to provide safety when operating\ndesign limits have been exceeded:\n(5) Periodically reviewing the response of operator personnel to determine\nthe effectiveness ofthe procedures controlling abnormal opdration and\ntaking corrective action where deficiencies are found.\nKaneb did not follow its operations and maintenance procedures and did not perform any\nreviews of operator personnel responses to abnormal operating conditions (AOC's) during\nthe 2004 - 2006 time period inspected.\nKaneb has an appropriate AOC form (KPL-J-196) and used it to document the occurrence\nof AOC's. However, a review of these forms showed your personnel did not use the\n\"EVALUATION\" section of the form to periodically document any reviews of the\neffectiveness ofthe procedures used in controlling the abnormal operations situations.\n2) $195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable waters.\n(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times each\ncalendar year, inspect the surface couditions on or adjacent to each pipeline\nright-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking, driving, flying or other\nappropriate means of traversing the right-of-way.\nKaneb did not adequately patrol numerous sections of the right-of-way on your anhydrous\nammonia pipeline system in Missouri, Illinois and Nebraska.\nKaneb uses aerial patrolling to inspect the condition of the pipeline righrof-way. The\nright-of-way was found to be overgrown at several locations, making aerial patrolling an\nineffective means of inspecting the condition of the pipeline right-of-way. Your personnel\nwere aware of the poor right-of-way conditions and did not use any other means of patrol\nin these areas of dense cover. Some areas noted during the audit of the anhydrous\nammonia pipeline system are as follows:\n1)\n2)\n3)\n4)\nAt 4 road crossings in an approximate 4 mile pipeline section from MP4l.4 to MP45.4\nnear Mountain View, Missouri (approximately 150 feet along the pipeline in each\ndirection from the road crossing, thence opening up into open cropland and being\nclear)\nIn an approximate 500 foot section of woods at a foreign line crossing with a Conoco-\nPhillips pipeline at MP 47.9 near Litchfield, Illinois\nIn an approximate 300 foot section of small woods on either side of a creek crossing at\nMPI 15.1 near Trilla, lllinois\nIn an approximate 200 foot section of small woods on the west side of the Elkhorn\nRiver crossing at MP33,0 near Arlington, Nebraska\n\n\n\nProposed Civil Penal8\nUnder 49 United States Code, $ 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of\n$1,000,000 for any related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the\ncircumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and\nhas recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty as follows:\nItem Number\nL\nPENALTY\n$38,000\nWarning Items\nWith respect to Item I we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents\ninvolved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or\npenalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly conect this item. Be\nadvised that failure to do so may result in Kaneb being subject to additional enforcement\naction.\nProposed Comoliance Order\nWith respect to Item 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code $ 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Kaneb.\nPlease refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this\nNotice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled,Response Options for Pipeline\nOperators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response\noptions. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a\nwaiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate\nAdministrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice\nto you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2007-5002 and for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerelS\nd/.,*.\" 0\"lJ*,h;-\nIvan A. Huntoon\nDirector, Central Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 Unite; States Code $ 601 18, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Kaneb a Compliance Order in regards to Item\nNumber 2 of the Notice for its anhydrous ammonia pipeline system in the states of Missouri,\nIllinois, Indiana, Iowa and Nebraska incorporating the following remedial requirements to\nenswe the compliance of Kaneb with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. Pertaining to inspection ofthe surface conditions on or adjacent to the pipeline right-\nof-way, provide to Ivan A. Huntoon, Director, Central Region, Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration, 901 Locust Street, Room 462, Kansas\nCity, MO 64106 a plan and schedule of action for clearing the right-of-way where\naerial patrolling will be utilized.\n2. The plan must identify sections of pipeline right-of-way throughout the system that are\novergrown and will remain overgrown for a period of time while awaiting clearing.\nFor these sections, Kaneb must provide an altemate means to aerial patrolling in order\nto comply with inspection of the surface conditions on or adjacent to the pipeline\nright-of-way as required by 9195.412.\n3. Provide the plan and action schedule within 30 days from the date of receipt of the\nFinal Order.\n4.\nImplement the plan and schedule required by items 1 and 2, above, within 60 days\nfrom the date ofreceipt ofthe Final Order.\n5.\nKaneb shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with\nfulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Ivan A. Huntoon, Director,\nCentral Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 901 Locust\nSffeet, Room 462, Kansas City, MO 64106. Costs shall be reported in two categories:\nl) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedwes, studies and\nanalyses, and 2) total costs associated with replacements, additions and other changes\nto pipeline infrastructure.","truncated":false,"body_characters":27487}