{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320125010","title":"COFFEYVILLE RESOURCES CRUDE TRANSPORTATION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-05-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(f)(4), 195.452(f)(8), 195.452(h), 195.452(h)(4)(iii)(e).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320125010.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320125010.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320125010","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320125010","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving COFFEYVILLE RESOURCES CRUDE TRANSPORTATION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(f)(4),  195.452(f)(8),  195.452(h),  195.452(h)(4)(iii)(e). The case was opened on 2012-05-11 and is reported as closed as of 2013-11-26. Proposed civil penalty: $84,700. Assessed civil penalty: $74,700. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320125010_Final Order_11132013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125010/320125010_Final%20Order_11132013.pdf\n\n320125010_Final Order_11132013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125010/320125010_Final%20Order_11132013_text.pdf\n\n320125010_NOPV PCP PCO_05112012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125010/320125010_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05112012.pdf\n\n320125010_NOPV PCP PCO_05112012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125010/320125010_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05112012_text.pdf\n\n320125010_Operator Response to Notice_06142012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125010/320125010_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_06142012.pdf\n\n320125010_Final Order_11132013_text.pdf\n\nNOVEMBER 13, 2013\nMr. John Lipinski\nPresident\nCVR Energy Incorporation\n2277 Plaza Drive\nSuite 500, Building B\nSugar Land, Texas 77479\nRe: CPF No. 3-2012-5010\nDear Mr. Lipinski:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a reduced civil penalty of $74,700. A partial payment of $40,500 was\nreceived for Items 3 and 4 on June 8, 2012. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final\nOrder. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of the\nFinal Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided 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: Ms. Linda Daugherty, Central Region Director, OPS\nMr. Robert Haugen, Executive VP of Refining Operations, Coffeyville Resources Crude\nTransportation, LLC, 2277 Plaza Drive, Suite 500, Building B, Sugar Land, Texas\n77479\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN 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____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nCoffeyville Resources Crude ) CPF No. 3-2012-5010\nTransportation, LLC )\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn April 25-29, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the Integrity Management Program (IMP) of\nCoffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC (Coffeyville or Respondent) in Bartlesville,\nOklahoma. In 2012, CVR Energy, Inc. formed a limited partnership, CVR Refining, LP, to own,\noperate and grow its petroleum refining and related logistic businesses. CVR Refining’s\npetroleum business includes Coffeyville which operates a 50,000-barrel-per-day, crude oil\ngathering and trucking system located in Bartlesville and Wynnewood, Oklahoma, and Plainville\nand Winfield, Kansas.1 The gathering system is comprised of more than 350 miles of company-\nowned pipelines and associated tankage and truck transportation facilities.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated May 11, 2012, 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 Coffeyville had violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452 and proposed assessing a\ncivil penalty of $84,700 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nCoffeyville responded to the Notice by letter dated June 14, 2012 (Response). The company\ncontested the allegations for Items 1 and 2 but not Items 3 and 4. Respondent also offered\nadditional information in response to the Notice and requested that the proposed civil penalty be\nreduced or eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to\none.\n1 http://www.coffeyvillecrude.com/CVREnergyInc/(last accessed September 3, 2013).\n2 http://www.cvrrefining.com/RefiningOperations/index html (last accessed August 31, 2013).\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(4), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequences areas.\n(a) ….\n(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An\nintegrity management program begins with the initial framework. An\noperator must continually change the program to reflect operating\nexperience, conclusions drawn from results of the integrity assessments,\nand other maintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation of\nconsequences of a failure on the high consequence area. An operator must\ninclude, at minimum, each of the following elements in its written\nintegrity management program:\n(4) Criteria for remedial actions to address integrity issues raised by\nthe assessment methods and information analysis (see paragraph (h) of this\nsection).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(4) by failing to establish\nadequate criteria to determine remedial actions to address integrity issues raised by the\nassessment and information analysis. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Coffeyville did not\nperform sufficient verification and/or calibration activities for each of the 19 inline inspection\n(ILI) runs performed on its pipelines. PHMSA also alleged that Coffeyville did not document\nthe size of the as-found anomalies to compare with ILI results to verify the accuracy of the ILI\ntool.\nIn its Response, Coffeyville argued that its IMP procedures comply with the regulations because\nthe regulation does not include a standard for adequacy of remedial actions prompted by\nassessment and information analysis. Further, Coffeyville argued that §195.452(f)(4) does not\nrequire calibration digs or other verification activities, and Coffeyville’s Integrity Management\n(IM) inspection protocol states, “an operator may implement a process by which called\nanomalies are excavated so that tool results may be validated.”\nWhile the regulations do not specifically require calibration digs, the cited provision requires that\noperators have criteria established for and perform “information analysis.” In order to analyze\nthe information provided by the tool, the operator must have a way to verify its accuracy.\nOperators typically analyze tool data through comparison of the anomaly as called by the tool\nand the actual anomaly. Coffeyville did not provide any information about it how it complied\nwith the requirement that operators perform “information analysis.”\nFurthermore, the IMP regulations provide PHMSA with the authority to determine the adequacy\nof an operator’s processes and their implementation, and Respondent’s criteria were deficient in\ndefining how ILI tool error and tolerances were considered in the criteria for remedial actions.\n\n\n\n3\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(f)(4) by failing to establish adequate criteria to address remedial actions and integrity\nissues raised by the assessment methods and information analysis.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(8), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequences areas.\n(a) ….\n(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An\nintegrity management program begins with the initial framework. An\noperator must continually change the program to reflect operating\nexperience, conclusions drawn from results of the integrity assessments,\nand other maintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation of\nconsequences of a failure on the high consequence area. An operator must\ninclude, at minimum, each of the following elements in its written\nintegrity management program:\n(8) A process for review of integrity assessment results and\ninformation analysis by a person qualified to evaluate the results and\ninformation (see paragraph (h)(2) of this section).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(8) by failing to have a\nprocess for review of integrity assessment results and information analysis by a person qualified\nto evaluate the results and information. Specifically, the Notice alleged that one of the integrity\nmanagement tasks addressed the qualification of individuals who review integrity assessments\nand information analysis. During the inspection, Respondent could not demonstrate the training\nor qualifications for its identified employees or the consultants who reviewed integrity results\nand performed the analyses. Respondent did not provide documentation to substantiate that the\nindividuals had the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities to make recommendations on\nremedial actions.\nIn its Response, Coffeyville argued that the ILI vendor was qualified and that Coffeyville’s\nemployees have decades of pipeline experience that should qualify them to review the integrity\nassessment results. Respondent noted that Table 4.1 of Coffeyville’s IM Plan fully contemplates\nthe use of a consultant as part of the integrity management team. The identified task of\nperforming an inspection and preparing a report are assigned to the consultant. The identified\ntask of evaluating the inspection results is a shared responsibility between the consultant and the\nRespondent’s pipeline maintenance foreman. Additionally, Respondent argued that the\nregulation does not require documentation of the qualifications. Nonetheless, Coffeyville\nincluded Table 4.1 with two employees and also listed consultants from TDW Pipeline Services\nand Integrity Solutions, Ltd. as the persons qualified to review integrity assessment results and\ndevelop remedial action plans. The Respondent also included the resumes and certificates\ndocumenting work experience, education, and training of the listed personnel.\nRespondent’s argument that the cited regulation does not require documentation of qualifications\nconflicts with the requirements of § 195.452(l)(1)(ii). This provision requires that “documents to\nsupport the decisions and analyses, including any modifications, justifications variances,\n\n\n\n4\ndeviations, and determinations made . . .” be maintained for review during an inspection.\nDocumentation of personnel qualifications is necessary to support IMP actions to demonstrate to\nPHMSA that decisions and analyses are performed by those with the requisite knowledge and\nskill. Therefore, the qualifications of the personnel tasked to perform the analyses fall within the\nscope of term \"documents\" as provided for in the regulation. Accordingly, after considering all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(8) by failing to have a\nprocess for review of integrity assessment results and information analysis by a person qualified\nto evaluate the results and information.\nIn its Response, Coffeyville did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 195, as follows:\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) ….\n(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n(4) Special requirements for scheduling remediation— (i) Immediate\nrepair conditions. An operator's evaluation and remediation schedule must\nprovide for immediate repair conditions. To maintain safety, an operator\nmust temporarily reduce operating pressure or shut down the pipeline until\nthe operator completes the repair of these conditions. An operator must\ncalculate the temporary reduction in operating pressure using the formula\nin Section 451.6.2.2 (b) of ANSI/ASME B31.4 (incorporated by reference,\nsee § 195.3). An operator must treat the following conditions as\nimmediate repair conditions:\n(C) A dent located on the top of the pipeline (above the 4 and 8\no’clock positions) that has any indication of metal loss, cracking or a\nstress riser.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h) by failing to schedule an\nimmediate repair condition. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Coffeyville did not schedule\nand repair three dents identified to be immediate repair conditions during review of ILI results on\nSeptember 8, 2008. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based\nupon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h) by\nfailing to schedule an immediate repair condition.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(E), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) ….\n(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n(4) Special requirements for scheduling remediation--\n(iii) 180-day conditions. Except for conditions listed in paragraph\n(h)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section, an operator must schedule evaluation and\nremediation of the following within 180 days of discovery of the\n\n\n\n5\ncondition:\n(E) An area of general corrosion with a predicted metal loss greater\nthan 50% of the nominal wall.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h) by failing to schedule a\n180-day condition. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Coffeyville did not schedule and\nremediate three metal loss anomalies identified during review of ILI results from the\nSeptember 8, 2008 ILI assessment of the 4” Bartlesville to Caney River Trap segment.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(iii)(E) by failing to\nschedule a 180-day condition.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses 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. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $84,700 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $22,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(f)(4), for failing to establish adequate criteria to address remedial actions and integrity\nissues raised by the assessment methods and information analysis. Respondent's failure to create\nadequate criteria to address remedial actions due to integrity issues raised by the assessment\nmethods and information analysis could have threatened the integrity of the pipeline and high\nconsequence areas. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $22,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(4).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $22,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(f)(8), for failing to have a process for review of integrity assessment results and\ninformation analysis by a person qualified to evaluate the results and information. Respondent\nargued in its Response that it did not require documentation of such qualifications; however, as\ndiscussed above, the regulations do require them. Nonetheless, since Respondent subsequently\nprovided proof of the qualifications for the personnel reviewing the integrity assessment results,\nthe civil penalty has been reduced. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $12,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n\n\n\n6\n§ 195.452(f)(8).\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $22,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(h)(4), for failing to schedule an immediate repair condition. Coffeyville neither\ncontested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the\nproposed penalty. Respondent has already paid the civil penalty for Item 3. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$22,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4). A payment for this Item was received on\nJune 8, 2012.\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $18,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(h), for failing to schedule a 180-day condition. Coffeyville neither contested the\nallegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty.\nRespondent has already paid the civil penalty for Item 4. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $18,400 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(iii)(E). A payment for this Item was received on\nJune 8, 2012.\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total reduced civil penalty of $74,700. A partial\npayment of $40,500 was received for Items 3 and 4 on June 8, 2012.\nPayment of the remaining civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal\nregulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through\nthe Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury.\nDetailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should\nbe directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration,\nMike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the remainder of the $74,700 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the\ncurrent annual rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R.\n§ 89.23. Pursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum\nwill be charged if payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay\nthe civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate\naction in a district court of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.452(f)(4) and 195.452(f)(8), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601. The Director indicates that Respondent has taken the following actions\nspecified in the proposed compliance order:\n\n\n\n7\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(f)(4) (Item 1), Respondent developed criteria to\ndetermine remedial actions to address integrity issues raised by assessments and information\nanalysis, and reevaluate the most current assessment reports for all pipelines. The plan and\nschedule, including a number of statistically established verification and/or calibration activities,\nwas submitted to the Central Region office.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(f)(4) (Item 1), Respondent excavated any condition\nthat met the criteria for immediate conditions on all pipelines. Once exposed, each anomaly was\ncleaned to sound metal and appropriate measurements were documented. If the anomalies\nexceeded the predicted dimensions, the report was re-evaluated appropriately.\n3. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(f)(8) (Item 2), Respondent had all personnel\nreviewing integrity assessment results and information analysis trained and qualified in\naccordance with the requirements of the Coffeyville IM Plan. The plan was submitted to the\nCentral Region that described training and qualifications required and a schedule of the proposed\ntraining.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations.\nTherefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\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 sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all\nother terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n320125010_NOPV PCP PCO_05112012_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMay 11, 2012\nMr. Robert Haugen\nExecutive VP of Refining Operations\nCoffeyville Resources LLC\n2277 Plaza Drive, Suite 500, Building B\nSugar Land, Texas 77479\nCPF 3-2012-5010\nDear Mr. Haugen:\nOn April 25-29, 2011, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected your\nIntegrity Management Program in Bartlesville, Oklahoma.\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. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An integrity\nmanagement program begins with the initial framework. An operator must\ncontinually change the program to reflect operating experience, conclusions\n\n\n\ndrawn from results of the integrity assessments, and other maintenance and\nsurveillance data, and evaluation of consequences of a failure on the high\nconsequence area. An operator must include, at minimum, each of the following\nelements in its written integrity management program:\n(4) Criteria for remedial actions to address integrity issues raised by the\nassessment methods and information analysis (see paragraph [h] of this section);\nCoffeyville Resources LLC (Coffeyville) has not established adequate criteria to determine\nthe remedial actions required to address inline inspection (ILI) findings. Coffeyville did not\nperform sufficient verification and/or calibrations activities for each of the nineteen ILI runs\nperformed on their pipelines. Procedure 6.02 ADM-011 requires that calibration digs be\nperformed. While there was no evidence indicating that the lack of calibration digs\ncontributed to pipeline accidents, two failures have occurred on pipe that had been previously\nassessed.\n2. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An integrity\nmanagement program begins with the initial framework. An operator must\ncontinually change the program to reflect operating experience, conclusions\ndrawn from results of the integrity assessments, and other maintenance and\nsurveillance data, and evaluation of consequences of a failure on the high\nconsequence area. An operator must include, at minimum, each of the following\nelements in its written integrity management program:\n(8) A process for review of integrity assessment results and information analysis\nby a person qualified to evaluate the results and information (see paragraph\n(h)(2) of this section).\nCoffeyville did not have a review of integrity assessment results and information analysis by a\nperson qualified to evaluate the results and information. Table 4.1 of Coffeyville’s integrity\nmanagement plan (IMP) identified ten company employees who are to be qualified. The IMP\nalso identifies eight integrity management (IM) related tasks that are to be completed by those\nqualified employees. One of those IM tasks addressed the qualification of individuals who\nreview integrity assessments and information analysis. Coffeyville did not demonstrate that\nany training or qualifications existed for any of the identified employees who reviewed\nintegrity results. No documentation was provided that the individuals had the necessary\nknowledge, skills and abilities to make recommendations on remedial actions.\n3. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n(4) Special requirements for scheduling remediation\n2\n\n\n\n(i) Immediate repair conditions. An operator's evaluation and remediation\nschedule must provide for immediate repair conditions. To maintain safety, an\noperator must temporarily reduce the operating pressure or shut down the\npipeline until the operator completes the repair of these conditions. An operator\nmust calculate the temporary reduction in operating pressure using the formula\nin section 451.7 of ASME/ANSI B31.4 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3), if\napplicable. If the formula is not applicable to the type of anomaly or would\nproduce a higher operating pressure, an operator must use an alternative\nacceptable method to calculate a reduced operating pressure.\n(C) A dent located on the top of the pipeline (above the 4 and 8 o'clock positions)\nthat has any indication of metal loss, cracking or a stress riser.\nCoffeyville did not schedule and repair three dents identified during review of ILI results\nfrom the September 8, 2008, ILI assessment of the 4” Bartlesville to Caney River Trap\nsegment. These dents were determined to be immediate repair conditions by Coffeyville\npersonnel and had not been repaired at the time of the PHMSA inspection.\n4. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n(4) Special requirements for scheduling remediation\n(iii) 180-day conditions. Except for conditions listed in paragraph (h)(4)(i) or (ii)\nof this section, an operator must schedule evaluation and remediation of the\nfollowing within 180 days of discovery of the condition:\n(E) An area of general corrosion with a predicted metal loss greater than 50%\nof nominal wall.\nCoffeyville did not schedule and remediate three metal loss anomalies identified during\nreview of ILI results from the September 8, 2008, ILI assessment of the 4” Bartlesville to\nCaney River Trap segment. These metal loss anomalies were determined to be 180-day repair\nconditions by Coffeyville personnel and had not been remediated at the time of the PHMSA\ninspection.\nProposed Civil Penalty\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 of $84,700 as follows:\n3\n\n\n\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $ 22,100\n2 $ 22,100\n3 $ 22,100\n4 $ 18,400\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 1and 2, pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to\nCoffeyville. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a\npart of this Notice.\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. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is\nsubject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive\nmaterial qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete\noriginal document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you\nbelieve qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the\nredacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not\nrespond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to\ncontest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline\nSafety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final\nOrder.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2012-5010 and for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nDavid Barrett\nDirector, Central Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n4\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Coffeyville Resources LLC (Coffeyville) a\nCompliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the\ncompliance of Coffeyville with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to inadequate criteria for\nremedial actions to address integrity issues, Coffeyville shall develop criteria\nto determine remedial actions to address integrity issues raised by assessments\nand information analysis, and reevaluate the most current assessment reports\nfor all pipelines. A plan and schedule will be submitted to this office that\nshows how the findings of the reevaluation will be verified. A statistically\nestablished number of verification and/or calibration activities shall be\nincluded. These compliance requirements will be completed within 90 days of\nthe Final Order.\n2. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to inadequate criteria for\nremedial actions to address integrity issues, Coffeyville shall excavate any\ncondition that meets the criteria for immediate conditions on all pipelines.\nOnce exposed, each anomaly will be cleaned to sound metal and appropriate\nmeasurements will be documented. In the event the anomalies exceed the\npredicted dimensions, the report shall be re-evaluated appropriately. Any\ncorrective measures will need to be performed immediately. These compliance\nrequirements will be completed within 150 days of the Final Order.\n3. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to having qualified\npersonnel review of integrity assessment results and information analysis,\nCoffeyville shall have all personnel reviewing integrity assessment results and\ninformation analysis trained and qualified in accordance with the requirements\nof the Coffeyville integrity management plan. A plan will be submitted to this\noffice that describes training and qualifications required and a schedule of the\nproposed training. These compliance requirements will be completed within\n60 days of the Final Order.\n4. Coffeyville shall submit documentation of the completed compliance actions\nabove within 30 days after their completion.\n5. It is requested that Coffeyville maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit\nthe total to David Barrett, Director, Central Region, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in\ntwo categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans,\nprocedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n5","truncated":false,"body_characters":33324}