{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 32021005NOPV","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":"2021-04-09","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.264(b)(1), 195.410(a)(2), 195.412(a), 195.583(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32021005nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32021005nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32021005nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/32021005NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving NUSTAR PIPELINE OPERATING PARTNERSHIP L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.264(b)(1),  195.410(a)(2),  195.412(a),  195.583(a). The case was opened on 2021-04-09 and is reported as closed as of 2022-09-07. Proposed civil penalty: $75,200. Assessed civil penalty: $75,200. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n32021005NOPV_Closure Letter_09072022_(20-195598).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32021005NOPV/32021005NOPV_Closure%20Letter_09072022_(20-195598).pdf\n\n32021005NOPV_Closure Letter_09072022_(20-195598)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32021005NOPV/32021005NOPV_Closure%20Letter_09072022_(20-195598)_text.pdf\n\n32021005NOPV_Final Order_12012021_(20-195598).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32021005NOPV/32021005NOPV_Final%20Order_12012021_(20-195598).pdf\n\n32021005NOPV_Final Order_12012021_(20-195598)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32021005NOPV/32021005NOPV_Final%20Order_12012021_(20-195598)_text.pdf\n\n32021005NOPV_Op Resp to Not and Req Withdraw of Not Ltr_05072021_(20-195598).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32021005NOPV/32021005NOPV_Op%20Resp%20to%20Not%20and%20Req%20Withdraw%20of%20Not%20Ltr_05072021_(20-195598).pdf\n\n32021005NOPV_PCP PCO_04092021_(20-195598).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32021005NOPV/32021005NOPV_PCP%20PCO_04092021_(20-195598).pdf\n\n32021005NOPV_PCP PCO_04092021_(20-195598)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32021005NOPV/32021005NOPV_PCP%20PCO_04092021_(20-195598)_text.pdf\n\n32021005NOPV_Closure Letter_09072022_(20-195598)_text.pdf\n\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: brad.barron@nustarenergy.com and\ngary.koegeboehn@nustarenergy.com\nSeptember 7, 2022\nMr. Brad Barron\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nNuStar Pipeline Operating Partnership, L.P.\n19003 IH-10 West\nSan Antonio, Texas 78257\nRE: CPF 3-2021-005-NOPV\nDear Mr. Barron:\nOn December 1, 2021, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a\nFinal Order which included a Compliance Order to NuStar Pipeline Operating Partnership, L.P.(NuStar).\nBy letter dated March 9, 2022, from Mr. Gary Koegeboehn, Vice President, NuStar requested closure of\nthe Compliance Order.\nThe Compliance Order required that NuStar must properly inspect the below listed vaulted mainline\nvalves for atmospheric corrosion by entering the vaults with confined space permits per NuStar Operating\nand Maintenance Procedures and clean and inspect the valve and pipe for atmospheric corrosion with\ncompletion and documentation submitted to the Director within 120 days of the receipt of the Final Order.\na. Geneva Unit locations - Shickley Jct/Columbus Segment: MP# 80.97\n(North Platte River Valve), MP# 79.10 (North Bellwood Lakes Valve),\nMP# 58.35 (Gresham Valve), MP# 49.61 (Thayer Valve), MP# 37.46\n(York Valve) and MP# 14.16 (Hwy 41 Valve);\nb. Moorhead-Roseville Unit locations: MP 639.6 (Rothsay Valve), MP\n539.3 (New Munich Valve), MP 502.4 (Clearwater Valve), MP 487.3\n(Monticello Valve), MP 453.1 (Lyndale Valve) and MP 451.9 (BN\nValve).\nNuStar has completed the atmospheric corrosion inspections on the twelve (12) vaulted valve locations\nper section 4.0 Corrosion Control Manual and §195.583(a). Each of the twelve valve vaults were drained\nof accumulated ground water (if present), safely entered per the requirements of NuStar O&M Manual\nProcedure 315, cleaned as required and then inspected for atmospheric corrosion. Details of each\ninspection were shown on submitted atmospheric corrosion inspection forms for each location.\n\n\n\nBased on our review of documentation you provided on March 9, 2022, and your Payment of Penalty on\nDecember 7, 2021, it has been determined that NuStar has complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed with respect to the matters involved. Thank you for your cooperation\nin this matter.\nSincerely,\nGregory A. Ochs\nDirector, Central Region, OPS\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n32021005NOPV_Final Order_12012021_(20-195598)_text.pdf\n\nDecember 1, 2021\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: brad.barron@nustarenergy.com\nMr. Brad Barron\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nNuStar Pipeline Operating Partnership, L.P.\n19003 IH-10 West\nSan Antonio, Texas 78257\nRe: CPF No. 3-2021-005-NOPV\nDear Mr. Barron:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $75,200, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nNuStar Pipeline Operating Partnership, L.P. to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The\npenalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and\nthe terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Central Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the\ndate of transmission 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. Gregory Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Gary Koegeboehn, Vice President of Pipeline Operations, NuStar Pipeline Operating\nPartnership, L.P., gary.koegeboehm@nustarenergy.com\nMr. Michael Dillinger, Senior Counsel, NuStar Pipeline Operating Partnership, L.P.,\nmike.dillinger@nustarenergy.com\nCONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n_________________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nNuStar Pipeline Operating Partnership, L.P., ) CPF No. 3-2021-005-NOPV\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n_________________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn various dates between February 4 and November 5, 2020, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117,\nrepresentatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), inspected facilities and records of NuStar Pipeline Operating\nPartnership, L.P.’s (NuStar or Respondent) Central East Region Refined Products pipeline\nsystem in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Minnesota. NuStar has\napproximately 10,000 miles of pipeline and 64 terminal and storage facilities that store and\ndistribute crude oil, refined products, renewable fuels and specialty liquids.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated April 9, 2021, 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 NuStar had committed three violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, proposed\nassessing a civil penalty of $75,200 for the alleged violations, and proposed ordering Respondent\nto take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also included a warning\nitem pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. The warning item required no further action, but warned\nthe operator to correct the probable violation or face possible future enforcement action.\nNuStar responded to the Notice by letter dated May 7, 2021 (Response). NuStar contested the\nNotice by requesting that it be withdrawn or reduced to a warning, provided additional\ninformation regarding corrective actions it has taken in response to the allegations of violation\nset forth in the Notice, and alternatively requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced\nbased on the number of instances of violation in Item 4, among other factors. Respondent did\nnot request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\n1 NuStar Energy Website, About NuStar, available at https://www nustarenergy.com/Company?area=Company\n(last accessed November 18, 2021).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2021-005-NOPV\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\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\nto each pipeline right-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking,\ndriving, flying or other appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) by failing to inspect the\nsurface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline right-of-way using an appropriate method for\ninspection. Specifically, the Notice alleged that PHMSA’s field inspection at MP 1.22 of the\nCouncil Bluffs/Sioux Falls pipeline segment and at MP 513.2 of the Moorhead/Roseville\npipeline segment found that NuStar failed to adequately clear the right-of-way, thereby\npreventing effective aerial patrolling. Other appropriate means of inspecting the right-of-way\nhad not been performed. Since the time of PHMSA’s inspection, NuStar has cleared trees and\nvegetation from the MP 1.22 Council Bluffs/Sioux Falls pipeline segment and has added the MP\n513.2 Moorhead/Roseville pipeline segment to their list of areas to be patrolled by walking.\nIn its Response, NuStar did not contest the allegation of violation or the evidence in support of\nthe violation, but requested that the item be withdrawn or reduced to a warning because it\n“cooperated with the agency, took responsibility and . . ., since the time of inspection has\ncorrected allegations two and three . . . .”2 NuStar further supported its request based on its\n“excellent safety record” and its status as a “good corporate citizen.”3\nHaving considered its Response, I find NuStar’s corporate citizenship, enforcement history, and\nremediation are not grounds to withdraw the allegation or reduce it to a warning. The evidence\nin the record, including photos of the right-of-way, demonstrate that Respondent did not comply\nwith § 195.412 as alleged and NuStar did not contest that the underlying allegation of violation\noccurred. While NuStar should be commended for its contributions to local communities, it does\nnot negate or excuse noncompliance with a pipeline safety standard. In addition, as discussed\nbelow in the Assessment of Penalty, NuStar’s compliance history was already factored in to the\ncivil penalty in this case. Finally, correcting a violation after it has been discovered by PHMSA\nduring an inspection similarly does not provide grounds for withdrawing the violation.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.412(a) by failing to use an appropriate method for inspection of pipeline right-of-way.\n2 Response, at 1.\n3 Id.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2021-005-NOPV\nPage 3\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.410(a)(2), which states:\n§ 195.410 Line markers.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator\nshall place and maintain line markers over each buried pipeline in\naccordance with the following:\n(1) . . . .\n(2) The marker must state at least the following on a background of\nsharply contrasting color:\n(i) The word “Warning,” “Caution,” or “Danger” followed by the\nwords “Petroleum (or the name of the hazardous liquid transported)\nPipeline”, all of which, except for markers in heavily developed urban\nareas, must be in letters at least 1 inch (25 millimeters) high with an\nappropriate stroke of ¼ inch (6.4 millimeters).\n(ii) The name of the operator and a telephone number (including area\ncode) where the operator can be reached at all times.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.410(a)(2) by failing to place and\nmaintain right-of-way line markers that state, on a background of sharply contrasting color the\nword “Warning,” “Caution,” or “Danger” followed by the words “Petroleum (or the name of the\nhazardous liquid transported) Pipeline” in letters at least 1 inch (25 millimeters) high with the\nname of the operator and a telephone number (including area code) where the operator can be\nreached at all times. Specifically, the Notice alleged that PHMSA inspected line markers for the\n10-inch and 16-inch pipelines in the Geneva Unit at the C.R.I.&P. Railroad crossing near\nBelleville, Kansas. Two posts for each line were observed. For the 10-inch pipeline, the post on\nthe south side of the crossing was found missing a sign or placard and on the north side the post\nhad an unreadable sign that was blank due to sun exposure. For the 16-inch line, the post on the\nsouth side of the crossing was found missing a sign or placard and on the north side the sign had\ninformation for the former operator (KANAB). On the Mandan Unit 10-inch pipeline running\nfrom Mandan, North Dakota to Moorhead, Minnesota, a number of signs and right-of-way\nmarkers were faded and un-readable. PHMSA observed un-readable signage on fencing at the\nHay Creek valve site at MP 868.0 and right-of-way markers at MP 857.3, 845.3, 755.2, 751.2,\n741.2, 731.0, 725.0, 720.0, 716.8, 707.8, 697.9, 692.9, 682.0, 681.1 and 679.0. NuStar replaced\nthe signs at the Hay Creek valve site and placed new stick-on labels on right-of-way markers\nwhich had been noted by PHMSA as un-readable during the inspection.\nIn its Response, NuStar did not contest the allegation of violation or the evidence in support of\nthe violation. NuStar provided the same supporting argument and explanation for Item 3 as it\ndid for Item 2, and requested that the item be withdrawn or reduced to a warning because it\n“cooperated with the agency, took responsibility and . . ., since the time of inspection has\ncorrected allegations two and three . . . .”4 NuStar further supported its request for this item to be\nreduced to a warning based on its “excellent safety record” and its status as a “good corporate\ncitizen.”5 For the same reasons explained above, I find these arguments do not warrant\n4 Id.\n5 Id.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2021-005-NOPV\nPage 4\nwithdrawal of the allegation of violation or reducing to a warning given the evidence in the\nrecord of noncompliance with the pipeline safety regulations.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.410(a)(2) by failing to place and maintain right-of-way line markers with the required\nspecifications over each buried pipeline.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a), which states:\n§ 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?\n(a) You must inspect each pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere\nfor evidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once every 3 calendar years,\nbut with intervals not exceeding 39 months.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a) by failing to properly\ninspect vaulted mainline valves for atmospheric corrosion. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nduring field inspections, PHMSA personnel asked how the atmospheric corrosion inspections of\nvaulted valves were performed, and NuStar personnel stated the inspections were performed by\nonly one person at each site and by only viewing the valve and piping from ground level through\nthe vault lid hatch opening. The vaulted valves are in confined spaces and require a Confined\nSpace Permit for entry with proper equipment and number of personnel per NuStar Operation\nand Maintenance procedures. The person inspecting the valve did not enter the confined space to\nclean off the dirt and debris that covered the pipe and valve exterior and were not able to view\nthe underside of the piping and valve or the pipe at areas of the vault wall penetration points in\norder to perform a proper inspection for atmospheric corrosion. NuStar failed to properly inspect\nfor atmospheric corrosion the following vaulted valves:\n- Geneva Unit locations - Shickley Jct/Columbus Segment: MP# 80.97 (North Platte River\nValve), MP# 79.10 (North Bellwood Lakes Valve), MP# 58.35 (Gresham Valve), MP#\n49.61 (Thayer Valve), MP# 37.46 (York Valve) and MP# 14.16 (Hwy 41 Valve);\n- Moorhead-Roseville Unit locations: MP 639.6 (Rothsay Valve), MP 539.3 (New Munich\nValve), MP 502.4 (Clearwater Valve), MP 487.3 (Monticello Valve), MP 453.1 (Lyndale\nValve) and MP 451.9 (BN Valve).\nIn its Response, NuStar did not contest the underlying allegation of violation, but did contest the\ninstances of violation used to calculate the proposed civil penalty. In addition, NuStar put\nforward the same position in response to Items 2 and 3, which is summarized under Item 2\nabove. NuStar further stated that it had “already created a plan to comply with the Proposed\nCompliance Order by entering the vaults with confined space permits per our NuStar Operating\nand Maintenance Procedures, and cleaning and inspecting the valve and pipe for atmospheric\ncorrosion.”6\nHaving considered NuStar’s substantive argument challenging the instances of violation, I find\nNuStar misapplied the term “pipeline.” According to its Response, NuStar argued that\n6 Response, at 1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2021-005-NOPV\nPage 5\nregardless of the number of valves along a single pipeline that did not comply with § 195.583,\nPHMSA must consider them in the aggregate to be no more than one instance of a violation. I\ndisagree with this reading. Section 195.2 provides the definitions for terms used in the\nregulatory text of 49 C.F.R. Part 195. “Pipeline” is defined as “all parts of a pipeline facility\nthrough which a hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide moves in transportation, including, but not\nlimited to line pipe, valves, and other appurtenances connected to line pipe, . . .” (emphasis\nadded). The regulations are clear that the term “pipeline” includes valves, and thus § 195.583(a)\nrequires operators to inspect valves for atmospheric corrosion, and a failure to do so is properly\ncalculated as a separate instance of violation for each valve that was not properly inspected. In\naddition, I also reject the additional arguments put forward by NuStar in its request to reduce the\nviolation to a warning for the same reasons articulated in Items 2 and 3.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.583(a) by failing to inspect each pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of\natmospheric corrosion at least once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39\nmonths.\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$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.7\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I\nmust 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; any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue\ndoing business; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to discovery by PHMSA.\nIn addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction\nbecause of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice\nproposed a total civil penalty of $75,200 for the violations cited above.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $22,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.412(a), for failing to use an appropriate method for inspection of pipeline right-of-way.\nNuStar requested the alleged violation be withdrawn or reduced to a warning and provided\ninformation to reduce the civil penalty based on its compliance history, cooperation, and\ncommunity involvement. NuStar’s compliance history was already factored in to the civil\npenalty calculation. The Pipeline Safety Violation Report identified a single instance of\nviolation between April 8, 2016, and April 8, 2021, and it was appropriately reflected in the\n7 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2021-005-NOPV\nPage 6\npenalty calculation that is in the record. Respondent’s cooperation with PHMSA and its\nremediation of the violation are recognized, but are not grounds to reduce the penalty.8 Finally, I\nsimilarly reject the other reasons Respondent has offered to withdraw or reduce the penalty based\non its community involvement.\nI find the proposed penalty assessment factors appropriately support the proposed penalty for this\nviolation. Specifically, the nature of the violation related to failing to conduct an activity;\ncircumstances were that the violation was discovered by PHMSA; there were two instances of\nthe violation; gravity reflected that safety was minimally affected; culpability reflected the\noperator failed to comply with an applicable requirement; Respondent had a single prior offense;\nand good faith reflected that the operator did not have a reasonable justification for the\nnoncompliance. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $22,800 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a).\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $26,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.410(a)(2), for failing to place and maintain right-of-way line markers with the required\nspecifications over each buried pipeline. NuStar requested the alleged violation be withdrawn or\nreduced to a warning and provided information to reduce the civil penalty based on its\ncompliance history, cooperation, and community involvement. For the reasons stated above, I\nrejected this request. I find the proposed penalty assessment factors appropriately support the\nproposed penalty for this violation. Specifically, the nature of the violation related to missing\nequipment; circumstances were that the violation was discovered by PHMSA; there were two\ninstances of the violation; gravity reflected that safety was minimally affected; culpability\nreflected the operator failed to comply with an applicable requirement; Respondent had a single\nprior offense; and good faith reflected that the operator did not have a reasonable justification for\nthe noncompliance. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $26,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.410(a)(2).\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $26,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.583(a), for failing to inspect each pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence\nof atmospheric corrosion at least once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39\nmonths. NuStar requested the instances of violation be reduced from 12 instances to two, but for\nthe reasons stated above, I find this was based on an incorrect understanding of the definition of\n“pipeline.” Further, NuStar requested to reduce the civil penalty based on the same factors in\nItems 2 and 3, which I reject for the same reasons. I find the proposed penalty assessment\nfactors appropriately support the proposed penalty for this violation. Specifically, the nature of\nthe violation related to failing to conduct an activity; circumstances were that the violation was\ndiscovered by PHMSA; there were 12 instances of the violation; gravity reflected that safety was\nminimally affected; culpability reflected the operator failed to comply with an applicable\nrequirement; Respondent had a single prior offense; and good faith reflected that the operator did\nnot have a reasonable justification for the noncompliance. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $26,200 for\n8 See, e.g., Kinder Morgan Liquid Terminals, LLC, Final Order, CPF No. 1-2018-5004, 2019 WL 4257137, at *5\n(Jun. 27, 2019) (finding post-inspection corrective actions do not constitute grounds to reduce the penalty because\nthey were taken after PHMSA had already identified the violation).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2021-005-NOPV\nPage 7\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $75,200.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49\nC.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to 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 (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.\nThe Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $75,200 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 district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 4 in the Notice for violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 195.583(a). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the\nauthority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the\nfollowing actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its\noperations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.583(a) (Item 4), Respondent must properly\ninspect the below listed vaulted mainline valves for atmospheric corrosion by\nentering the vaults with confined space permits per NuStar Operating and\nMaintenance Procedures and clean and inspect the valve and pipe for atmospheric\ncorrosion. This must be completed and documentation submitted to the Director\nwithin 120 days of the receipt of the Final Order.\na. Geneva Unit locations - Shickley Jct/Columbus Segment: MP# 80.97\n(North Platte River Valve), MP# 79.10 (North Bellwood Lakes Valve),\nMP# 58.35 (Gresham Valve), MP# 49.61 (Thayer Valve), MP# 37.46\n(York Valve) and MP# 14.16 (Hwy 41 Valve);\nb. Moorhead-Roseville Unit locations: MP 639.6 (Rothsay Valve), MP\n539.3 (New Munich Valve), MP 502.4 (Clearwater Valve), MP 487.3\n(Monticello Valve), MP 453.1 (Lyndale Valve) and MP 451.9 (BN\nValve).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2021-005-NOPV\nPage 8\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 and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nPHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (see 49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\neach day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 1, the Notice alleged probable violation of Part 195, but identified it as a\nwarning item pursuant to § 190.205. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.264(b)(1)(i) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to satisfy\nthe requirements of Section 22.11.2 of NFPA-30 (2012 edition) regarding\nimpoundment around breakout tanks.\nIf OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject\nto future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and\nmeet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays\nthe payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective\naction, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nDecember 1, 2021\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":29789}