{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320186004","title":"ELLSJET TERMINAL — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2018-05-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.404(b)(1), 195.404(c)(3), 195.420(b), 195.428(a), 195.452(b)(1), 195.49, 195.509(a), 195.509(b), 195.573(a)(1), 195.573(c), 195.573(d), 195.583(a), 195.64(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320186004.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320186004.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320186004","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320186004","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ELLSJET TERMINAL. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.404(b)(1),  195.404(c)(3),  195.420(b),  195.428(a),  195.452(b)(1),  195.49,  195.509(a),  195.509(b),  195.573(a)(1),  195.573(c),  195.573(d),  195.583(a),  195.64(a). The case was opened on 2018-05-15 and is reported as closed as of 2019-09-10. Proposed civil penalty: $293,600. Assessed civil penalty: $293,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320186004_Closure Letter_09102019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320186004/320186004_Closure%20Letter_09102019.pdf\n\n320186004_Closure Letter_09102019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320186004/320186004_Closure%20Letter_09102019_text.pdf\n\n320186004_Final Order_10302018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320186004/320186004_Final%20Order_10302018.pdf\n\n320186004_Final Order_10302018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320186004/320186004_Final%20Order_10302018_text.pdf\n\n320186004_NOPV PCP PCO_05152018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320186004/320186004_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05152018.pdf\n\n320186004_NOPV PCP PCO_05152018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320186004/320186004_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05152018_text.pdf\n\n320186004_Operator Response to Notice_06152018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320186004/320186004_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_06152018.pdf\n\n320186004_NOPV PCP PCO_05152018_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMay 15, 2018\nMr. Barry McFarland\nVice President, Environmental, Health, Safety, and Operational Risk\nPar Pacific Holdings (dba Ellsjet Terminal)\n800 Gessner Road, 8th Floor\nHouston, TX 77024\nCPF 3-2018-6004\nDear Mr. McFarland:\nOn November 9-10, 2015, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49\nUnited States Code inspected your Ellsjet Terminal facilities and records in Rapid City, South\nDakota and Newcastle, Wyoming.\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 violations are:\n\n\n\n1. §195.49 Annual report.\nEach operator must annually complete and submit DOT Form PHMSA F 7000-\n1.1 for each type of hazardous liquid pipeline facility operated at the end of the\nprevious year. An operator must submit the annual report by June 15 each year,\nexcept that for the 2010 reporting year the report must be submitted by August\n15, 2011. A separate report is required for crude oil, HVL (including anhydrous\nammonia), petroleum products, carbon dioxide pipelines, and fuel grade ethanol\npipelines. For each state a pipeline traverses, an operator must separately\ncomplete those sections on the form requiring information to be reported for each\nstate.\nEllsjet Terminal (ET) did not annually complete and submit DOT Form PHMSA F\n7000-1.1 for each type of hazardous liquid pipeline facility operated at the end of the\nprevious year. On July 1, 2016, PHMSA received ET’s first annual report, although it\nhad been operating continuously for over 40 years. A review of operator records\ndetermined that they did not complete and submit reports for 2013, 2014 and 2015.\n2. §195.64 National Registry of Pipeline and LNG Operators.\n(a) OPID Request. Effective January 1, 2012, each operator of a hazardous liquid\nor carbon dioxide pipeline or pipeline facility must obtain from PHMSA an\nOperator Identification Number (OPID). An OPID is assigned to an operator for\nthe pipeline or pipeline system for which the operator has primary responsibility.\nTo obtain an OPID or a change to an OPID, an operator must complete an OPID\nAssignment Request DOT Form PHMSA F 1000.1 through the National Registry\nof Pipeline and LNG Operators in accordance with §195.58.\nET did not obtain an Operator Identification Number (OPID) from PHMSA as\nrequired by January 1, 2012. ET had been operating their pipeline for over 40 years\nbut did not obtain an OPID until November 2015 as shown on its OPID Assignment\nRequest. ET’s 2016 Annual Report lists the decade installed as 1950-1959.\n2\n\n\n\n3. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a\nmanual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance\nactivities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall\nbe reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is\neffective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline\nsystem commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nET failed to prepare all written procedures for conducting normal operations and\nmaintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies for its\nsystem to meet the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 before initial operations of the\npipeline system commenced. During the inspection on November 9-10, 2015, ET\ninformed PHMSA staff that procedural manuals for operations, maintenance and\nemergencies were not complete; therefore, no manuals were available for inspection.\nET has been continuously operating the pipeline for over 40 years and did not have a\nprocedural manual. ET had not identified itself as an operator until PHMSA became\naware of its operations in late 2015 and requested that it report itself as an operator.\nET’s failure to have procedural manuals is a violation of §192.402(a).\n4. §195.404 Maps and Records.\n(a)…\n(b) Each operator shall maintain for at least 3 years daily operating records that\nindicate-\n(1) The discharge pressure at each pump station;\nET did not maintain daily discharge pressure records at its pump station for at least 3\nyears. ET stated during PHMSA’s inspection that these records began being kept in\nOctober 2015. Therefore, ET had no historical operating pressure records prior to\nOctober 1, 2015.\n3\n\n\n\n5. §195.404 Maps and Records.\n(a)…\n(c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the periods specified;\n(3) A record of each inspection and test required by this subpart shall be\nmaintained for at least 2 years or until the next inspection or test is\nperformed, whichever is longer.\n§195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7 1/2 months, but at least twice\neach calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that it is functioning\nproperly.\nET had no valve inspection records prior to October 2015 to demonstrate that\ninspections had occurred twice each calendar year at intervals not exceeding 7 ½\nmonths for the years 2013, 2014, and up to the inspection in 2015. The pipeline\nsystem contains three mainline safety valves which had no inspection records prior to\nOctober 2015.\n6. §195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the\ncase of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 7½\nmonths, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each pressure\nlimiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control\nequipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical\ncondition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of\noperation for the service in which it is used.\nET did not inspect and test the overpressure safety device on its non-HVL pipeline at\nintervals not to exceed 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. ET informed\nPHMSA that inspecting and testing of its overpressure safety device began October\n2015 but no record was kept. ET did not inspect its overpressure protection devices to\nensure that they were operational in 2013 or 2014. Therefore, no inspection was\nperformed on the safety devices for over 3 years prior to October 2015.\n4\n\n\n\n7. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a)…\n(b) What program and practices must operators use to manage pipeline\nintegrity? Each operator of a pipeline covered by this section must:\n(1) Develop a written integrity management program that addresses the risks on\neach segment of pipeline in the first column of the following table not later\nthan the date in the second column:\nPipeline Date\nCategory 1 March 31, 2002\nCategory 2 February 18, 2003.\nCategory 3 1 year after the date the pipeline begins operation.\nET did not have an integrity management (IM) program in high consequence areas,\neven though it had been operating the pipeline continuously since February 18, 2003.\nET informed PHMSA that its pipeline meets the classification Category 2 on April 30,\n2016; therefore, it was required to have an IM program by February 18, 2003.\n8. §195.509 General.\n(a) Operators must have a written qualification program by April 27, 2001. The\nprogram must be available for review by the Administrator or by a state agency\nparticipating under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 if the program is under the authority\nof that state agency.\nET did not have a written operator qualification (OQ) program by April 27, 2001,\nalthough it operated the pipeline continuously since that date. Its OQ program was\ncreated after PHMSA’s inspection on November 9-10, 2015.\n9. §195.509 General.\n(a)…\n(b) Operators must complete the qualification of individuals performing covered\ntasks by October 28, 2002.\n5\n\n\n\n10. ET did not complete the qualification of individuals performing covered tasks by\nOctober 28, 2002. ET had operated the pipeline continuously since that date, but had\nnot completed the qualifications of its individuals as of the November 9-10, 2015,\ninspection.\nSpecifically, personnel were performing the following covered tasks for ET without\nbeing qualified:\nCovered tasks:\n Valve Maintenance\n Inspect Valves\n Repair Valves\n Inspect, Test and Calibrate Pressure Limiting Devices\n Shutdown of a Pipeline\n Monitor Pressures, Flows, Communications and Line Integrity, Maintain\nwithin Allowable Limits\n Manually or Remotely Open or Close Valves or Other Equipment\n Start-up of a Pipeline\n Visually Inspect Surface Conditions of Right of Way\n Routine Inspection of Breakout Tanks\n API 653 Inspection of In-Service Breakout Tanks\n Locate Line\n Install, Inspect, and Maintain Permanent Marker\n Install, Inspect, and Maintain Temporary Marker\n Check for Proper Operation of a Rectifier\n Obtain a Voltage and Current Output Reading from a Rectifier\n Adjustment of Rectifiers\n§195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine\nwhether cathodic protection required by this subpart complies with\nSec. 195.571:\n(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each\ncalendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months.\nHowever, if tests at those intervals are impractical for separately\nprotected short sections of bare or ineffectively coated pipelines,\ntesting may be done at least once every 3 calendar years, but with\nintervals not exceeding 39 months.\n6\n\n\n\n11. 12. ET did not conduct cathodic protection pipe-to-soil potential tests on the\npipeline at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding\n15 months. Specifically, ET did not conduct tests in 2014 at 13 test\nstations. The last tests were taken in 2013 prior to the cathodic protection\ntechnician leaving.\n§195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a)…\n(c) Rectifiers and other devices. You must electrically check for proper\nperformance each device in the first column at the frequency stated in the second\ncolumn.\nDevice Check frequency\nRectifier................................. At least six times each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 2 1/2 months.\nET did not conduct electrical checks for proper performance on its one rectifiers at\nleast six times each calendar year but with intervals not exceeding 2-1/2 months in\n2014 and 2015.\n§195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a)…\n(d) Breakout tanks. You must inspect each cathodic protection system used to\ncontrol corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank to ensure that\noperation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with API RP 651\n(incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). However, this inspection is not required\nif you note in the corrosion control procedures established under §195.402(c)(3)\nwhy complying with all or certain operation and maintenance provisions of API\nRP 651 is not necessary for the safety of the tank.\nAPI RP 651 reference:\n11.3.1.2 Annual cathodic protection surveys are recommended to ensure the\neffectiveness of cathodic protection. The electrical measurements used in the\nsurvey may include one or more of the measurements listed in 11.3.1.1.\n7\n\n\n\nET did not inspect its cathodic protection system on its three above ground breakout\ntanks to ensure that its operation and maintenance was in accordance with API RP 651.\nAnnual cathodic protection surveys are required by PHMSA to ensure the\neffectiveness of cathodic protection. ET did not conduct the annual surveys on its\nbreakout tank bottom as required.\n13. §195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?\n(a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the\natmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:\nIf the pipeline is located: Then the frequency of inspection is:\nOnshore At least once every 3 calendar years, but with\nintervals not exceeding 39 months\nET did not inspect its pipeline that was exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of\natmospheric corrosion at least every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding\n39 months. ET informed PHMSA that no atmospheric corrosions inspections had been\nperformed prior to May 2016.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to\nexceed $209,002 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,090,022\nfor a related series of violations. For violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, the\nmaximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty\nnot to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has\nreviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable\nviolation(s) and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of\n$293,600 as follows:\n8\n\n\n\nItem number\nPENALTY\n1\n$ 19,100\n$ 18,700\n$ 36,000\n$ 17,200\n$ 13,900\n$ 37,000\n$ 36,000\n$ 36,000\n10\n$ 21,300\n11\n$ 20,600\n12\n$ 19,100\n13\n$ 18,700\nWarning Items\nWith respect to item 9 we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents\ninvolved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty\nassessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these items). Failure\nto do so may result in additional enforcement action.\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 3, 7 and 12 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Ellsjet\nTerminal. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part\nof 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. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly\navailable. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide\na second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment\nredacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt\nof this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice\nand authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this\nNotice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\n9\n\n\n\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2018-6004 and for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nAllan C. Beshore\nDirector, Central Region, OPS\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n10\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 Ellsjet Terminal (ET) a Compliance Order\nincorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of ET with the\npipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to written procedural\nmanuals, ET must prepare a manual of written procedures for conducting\nnormal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal\noperations and emergencies as required by 49 CFR Part 195. A schedule for\ncompletion of this manual is to be submitted to the Director, Central Region\nwithin 30 days of the final order. Completion of this manual shall not exceed 6\nmonths from the issuance of the final order.\nIn regard to Item Number 7 of the Notice pertaining to an integrity\nmanagement program, ET must develop a written integrity in accordance with\n49 CFR Part 195.452. management. A schedule for completion of this manual\nis to be submitted to the Director, Central Region within 30 days of the final\norder. Completion of this manual shall not exceed 6 months from the issuance\nof the final order.\nIn regard to Item Number 12 of the Notice pertaining to monitoring external\ncorrosion control at its breakout tank, ET must monitor external corrosion\ncontrol at its breakout tank and remediate any deficiencies. Monitoring of its\nbreakout tanks must begin within 30 days of the final order. Records of the\ninitial monitor readings and any remediation must be submitted to the Director,\nCentral Region within 30 days of completion.\n4. It is requested (not mandated) that ET maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit\nthe total to Allan Beshore, 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.\n11\n\n320186004_Closure Letter_09102019_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nSeptember 10, 2019\nMr. William Pate\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nPar Pacific Holdings, Inc. (d.b.a. Ellsjet Terminal Operations)\n825 Town and Country Lane\nSuite 1500\nHouston, TX 77024\nRe: CPF 3-2018-6004\nDear Mr. Pate:\nOn November 9-10, 2015, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49\nUnited States Code inspected your Ellsjet Terminal Operations (Ellsjet) facilities and records\nin Rapid City, South Dakota and Newcastle, Wyoming. As a result of the inspection, the\nDirector, Central Region, OPS issued a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty\nand Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) on May 15, 2018. On October 30, 2018, PHMSA\nissued a Final Order, which made findings of violation, assessed a civil penalty, and ordered\nEllsjet to take certain compliance measures.\nThe record shows that Ellsjet paid the civil penalty, in addition to submitting items for the\nCompliance Order. As your submission of these documents meets the terms of the\nCompliance Order, this case is now closed. A review of the documents will be made during\nPHMSA’s inspections and, if necessary, a separate case will be opened. Thank you for your\ncooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAllan C. Beshore\nDirector, Central Region, OPS\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n320186004_Final Order_10302018_text.pdf\n\nOctober 30, 2018\nMr. William Pate\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nPar Pacific Holdings, Inc. (d/b/a Ellsjet Terminal Operations)\nOne Memorial Plaza\n800 Gessner Road, Suite 875\nHouston, TX 77024\nRe: CPF No. 3-2018-6004\nDear Mr. Pate:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $293,600. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of\nthe full penalty amount, by wire transfer, dated June 12, 2018. When the terms of the\ncompliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director, Central Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon\nthe date of mailing as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Alan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Barry McFarland, Vice President – Environmental, Health, Safety, and Operational\nRisk, Par Pacific Holdings, Inc. (d/b/a Ellsjet Terminal)\nMr. Mathew P. Ellman, Logistics Manager, Ellsjet Terminal Operations, 10 Stampede\nSt., Newcastle, WY, 82701\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____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nPar Pacific Holdings, Inc., ) CPF No. 3-2018-6004\nformerly Wyoming Refining Company, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom November 9 through November 10, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative\nof the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline\nSafety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Par\nPacific Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Ellsjet Terminal Operations1 (ET, Par Pacific, or Respondent), in\nRapid City, South Dakota, and Newcastle, Wyoming. Par Pacific owns and operates a seven-\nmile jet-fuel pipeline running from the Ellsjet tank farm in east Rapid City, South Dakota, to\nEllsworth Air Force Base, and three breakout tanks fed by a quarter-mile pipeline running from\nthe Magellan terminal.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated May 15, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Par Pacific\nhad committed 13 violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of\n$293,600 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take\ncertain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning item required no further action\nbut warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face possible future enforcement\naction.\nET responded to the Notice by letter dated June 15, 2018 (Response). Respondent did not\ncontest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $293,600. In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.208(a)(1), such payment authorizes the Associate\nAdministrator to make findings of violation and to issue this final order without further\n1 Par Pacific Holdings, LLC, acquired Wyoming Refining Company, the operator of the Ellsjet Terminal, in July\n2016. Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (January 18, 2018) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n2 Violation Report, at 1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2018-6004\nPage 2\nproceedings. For purposes of this Final Order, the terms “ET,” “Par Pacific” and \"Respondent\"\nare used interchangeably.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Par Pacific did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.49, which states:\n§ 195.49 Annual report.\nEach operator must annually complete and submit DOT Form PHMSA\nF 7000-1.1 for each type of hazardous liquid pipeline facility operated at the\nend of the previous year. An operator must submit the annual report by\nJune 15 each year, except that for the 2010 reporting year the report must\nbe submitted by August 15, 2011. A separate report is required for crude\noil, HVL (including anhydrous ammonia), petroleum products, carbon\ndioxide pipelines, and fuel grade ethanol pipelines. For each state a pipeline\ntraverses, an operator must separately complete those sections on the form\nrequiring information to be reported for each state.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.49 by failing to annually complete\nand submit DOT Form 7000-1.1 for each type of hazardous liquid pipeline facility operated at\nthe end of the previous year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that ET failed to complete and\nsubmit annual reports for 2013-2015. PHMSA received ET’s first annual report on June 1, 2016,\ndespite the fact that ET had operated this pipeline continuously for over 40 years.\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. § 195.49 by failing to annually\ncomplete and submit DOT Form 7000-1.1 for the years 2013-2015.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.64(a), which states:\n§ 195.64 National Registry of Pipeline and LNG Operators.\n(a) OPID Request. Effective January 1, 2012, each operator of a\nhazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipeline or pipeline facility must obtain\nfrom PHMSA an Operator Identification Number (OPID). An OPID is\nassigned to an operator for the pipeline or pipeline system for which the\noperator has primary responsibility. To obtain an OPID or a change to an\nOPID, an operator must complete an OPID Assignment Request DOT Form\nPHMSA F 1000.1 through the National Registry of Pipeline and LNG\nOperators in accordance with § 195.58.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.64(a) by failing to obtain an OPID\nfrom PHMSA as required by the regulation. Specifically, the Notice alleged that ET had been\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2018-6004\nPage 3\noperating its pipeline for over 40 years but did not obtain an OPID until November 2015, as\nshown on its OPID Assignment Request. According to the Notice, ET’s 2016 Annual Report\nfiled with PHMSA listed the decade of installation as 1950-1959.\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. § 195.64(a) by failing to obtain an\nOPID for its hazardous liquids pipeline.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 402(a), which states:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline\nsystem a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations\nand maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes made\nas necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be\nprepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and\nappropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to prepare and\nfollow written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and\nhandling abnormal operations and emergencies for its system prior to the commencement of\ninitial operations. Specifically, the Notice alleged that ET staff informed the PHMSA inspector\nthat its procedural manuals were incomplete and therefore unavailable for inspection. It further\nalleged that ET had not identified itself as a pipeline operator until PHMSA became aware of its\noperations in late 2015 and requested the company to report itself as a pipeline operator.\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. § 195.402(a) by failing to prepare all\nwritten procedures required by the regulation before initial operations of the pipeline system\ncommenced.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(b)(1), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.404 Maps and records.\n(a) …\n(b) Each operator shall maintain for at least 3 years daily operating\nrecords that indicate—\n(1) The discharge pressure at each pump station; . . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(b)(1) by failing to maintain\ndaily discharge pressure records at its pump station for at least three years. Specifically, the\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2018-6004\nPage 4\nNotice alleged that during the PHMSA inspection, ET stated that daily discharge pressure\nrecords were not kept until October 2015.\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. § 195.404(b)(1) for failing to maintain\nfor at least three years daily operating records that indicate discharge pressure at each pump\nstation.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(3), which states:\n§ 195.404 Maps and records.\n(a) …\n(c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the periods\nspecified;\n(1) …\n(3) A record of each inspection and test required by this subpart shall\nbe maintained for at least 2 years or until the next inspection or test is\nperformed, whichever is longer.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(3) by failing to maintain a\nrecord of each inspection and test required by Subpart F of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 for at least two\nyears or until the next inspection or test is performed, whichever is longer. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that ET had no valve-inspection records prior to October 2015 to demonstrate that\nit had performed mainline valve inspections twice each calendar year at intervals not exceeding\n7½ months, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b), for the years 2013, 2014, and up to the time of\nthe PHMSA inspection in 2015. According to the Notice, ET’s pipeline system has three\nmainline safety valves that are required to be inspected pursuant to § 195.420, which is contained\nin Subpart F.\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. § 195.404(c)(3) by failing to maintain\nvalve-inspection records prior to October 2015 for the three mainline safety valves on its pipeline\nsystem.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:\n§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section,\neach operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once\neach calendar year, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile\nliquids, at intervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each\ncalendar year, inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve,\npressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine\nthat it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is\nadequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the\nservice in which it is used.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2018-6004\nPage 5\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test\nthe overpressure safety devices on its non-highly-volatile-liquids (non-HVL) pipeline at intervals\nnot to exceed 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat ET did not inspect its overpressure protection devices to ensure that they were operational in\n2013 or 2014.\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. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and\ntest the overpressure safety devices on its non-HVL pipeline at intervals not to exceed 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year.\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(1), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) …\n(b) What programs and practices must operators use to manage\npipeline integrity? Each operator of a pipeline covered by this section must:\n(1) Develop a written integrity management program that addresses the\nrisks on each segment of pipeline in the first column of the following table\nnot later than the date in the second column:\nPipeline Date\nCategory 1……………………… Category 2……………………… Category 3……………………… March 31, 2002.\nFebruary 18, 2003.\n1 year after the date the pipeline\nbegins operation.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(1) by failing to have an\nintegrity management (IM) program for its High Consequence Areas. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that ET informed PHMSA on April 30, 2016, that its pipeline had been in continuous\noperation since 2003 and that it met the classification for Category 2 pipelines; therefore, it was\nrequired to have an IM program by February 18, 2003.\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(b)(1) by failing to develop a\nwritten IM program for its Category 2 pipeline by February 18, 2003.\nItem 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.509(a), which states:\n§ 195.509 General.\n(a) Operators must have a written qualification program by April 27,\n2001. The program must be available for review by the Administrator or\nby a state agency participating under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 if the program\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2018-6004\nPage 6\nis under the authority of that state agency.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.509(a) by failing to have a written\noperator qualification (OQ) program by April 27, 2001, despite operating continuously since that\ndate. Specifically, the Notice alleged that ET did not have an operator qualification program at\nthe time of the PHMSA inspection, and did not create one after November 10, 2015, when the\ninspection was completed.\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. § 195.509(a) by failing to have a\nwritten operator qualification (OQ) program by April 27, 2001.\nItem 10: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1), which states:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine\nwhether cathodic protection required by this subpart complies with\n§ 195.571:\n(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each calendar\nyear, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months. However, if tests at those\nintervals are impractical for separately protected short sections of bare or\nineffectively coated pipelines, testing may be done at least once every 3\nyears, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1) by failing to conduct\ncathodic-protection pipe-to-soil tests on the pipeline at least once each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 15 months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that ET did not conduct tests\nin 2014 at 13 test stations.\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. § 195.573(a)(1) by failing in 2014 to\nconduct cathodic-protection pipe-to-soil tests at 13 test stations on the pipeline at least once each\ncalendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months.\nItem 11: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(c), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) …\n(c) Rectifiers and other devices. You must electrically check for proper\nperformance each device in the first column at the frequency stated in the\nsecond column.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2018-6004\nPage 7\nDevice Check Frequency\nRectifier …………………………… At least six times each calendar\nyear, but with intervals not\nexceeding 2½ months.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(c) by failing to conduct\nelectrical checks on rectifiers for proper performance at the intervals required by the regulation.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that ET did not conduct the required checks in 2014 and 2015.\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. § 195.573(c) by failing to conduct\nelectrical checks on rectifiers for proper performance at the intervals required by the regulation.\nItem 12: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d), which states:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) …\n(d) Breakout tanks. You must inspect each cathodic protection system\nused to control corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank to\nensure that operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with\nAPI RP 651 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). However, this\ninspection is not required if you note in the corrosion control protection\nprocedures established under § 195.402(c)(3) why complying with all or\ncertain operation and maintenance provisions of [American Petroleum\nInstitute Recommended Practice (API RP)] 651 is not necessary for the\nsafety of the tank.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d) by failing to inspect its\ncathodic-protection system on its three above-ground breakout tanks to ensure that its operation\nand maintenance was in accordance with API RP 651. Specifically, the Notice alleged that ET\ndid not conduct the annual surveys on its breakout-tank bottoms, as required under API RP 651.\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. § 195.573(d) by failing to inspect its\ncathodic-protection system on its three above-ground breakout tanks to ensure that its operation\nand maintenance was in accordance with API RP 651.\nItem 13: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?\n(a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed\nto the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2018-6004\nPage 8\nIf the pi","truncated":true,"body_characters":54009}