{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420055012","title":"CITGO PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2005-03-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.402(c)(3), 195.428(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420055012.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420055012.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420055012","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420055012","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving CITGO PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.402(c)(3),  195.428(a). The case was opened on 2005-03-03 and is reported as closed as of 2005-07-27. Proposed civil penalty: $14,000. Assessed civil penalty: $14,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420055012_Final Order_07142005.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420055012/420055012_Final%20Order_07142005.pdf\n\nCITGO PIPELINE COMPANY (420055012)1.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420055012/CITGO%20PIPELINE%20COMPANY%20(420055012)1.pdf\n\n420055012_Final Order_07142005.pdf\n\nUS. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and\nHazarclous Materials Safety\nAdministration\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nJUL 1 4 2005\nMr. Jerry E. Thompson\nPresident\nCITGO Pipeline Company\n6100 S. Yale\nP.O. Box 3758\nTulsa, OK 741 02-3758\nRe: CPF No. 4-2005-5012\nDear Mr. Thompson:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the\nabove-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $14,000. The\npenaltypayment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically\nupon payment. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R.\ng 190.5.\nSincerely,\n/ \" ' Pipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: R.M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region, OPS\nJim Sanders\nManager, Region Pipeline and Terminal Facilities, CITGO\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\n1\nIn the Matter of\nCITGO Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 4-2005-5012\nRespondent 1\nFINAL ORDER\nOn August 11-15, 25-29, and September 8-12, 2003, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5 60117, a\nrepresentative of the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), Research and Special Programs\nAdministration (RSPA), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's facilities\nand records pertaining to the Sour Lake District, Eagle Line South, and Eagle Line North pipeline\nsystems in Oklahoma and Texas.' As a result of the inspection, the Director of the Southwest\nRegion, OPS, issued to Respondent a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty\n(Notice) by letter dated March 3, 2005. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. 5 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding Respondent had violated 49 C.F.R. 195.428(a) and proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $14,000 for the alleged violation.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated April 1,2005 (Response). In the Response, the\nRespondent did not contest the violation alleged in the Notice. Instead, Respondent offered an\nexplanation for the violation, provided information concerning corrective action it has taken to\ncorrect the violation, and requested the proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated.\nRespondent did not request a hearing in the Response, and has therefore waived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nIn the Response, Respondent did not contest the violation alleged in the Notice. Accordingly, I find\nRespondent violated the following section of 49 C.F.R. Part 195:\n1 The Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 108-426,118\nStat. 2423 (2004), created the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and\ntransferred the authority of RSPA exercised under chapter 601 of title 49, United States Code, to the\nAdministrator of PHMSA. See also 70 Fed. Reg. 8299, 8301-8302 (2005) (delegating authority to the\nAdministrator of PHMS A).\n\n\n\n2\n49 C.F.R. 5 195.428(a) - failing to determine by regular inspection and testing that each\npressure relief valve is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is\nadequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which\nit is used. At the time Respondent's facilities were inspected, 10 of the 12 pressure relief\nvalves (PRV) tested at Arlington Station either would not open, opened above 1 10% of set\npoint, or could not be isolated for testing. Specifically, PRVs # 7 and 34 would not open,\nPRVs # 5,9,13, 14, and 3 1 opened above 1 10% of their set points, and PRVs # 1 1,30 and\n33 could not be isolated. Only PRVs # 19 and 37 tested acceptably.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. 5 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of\nviolations. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $14,000 for the violation.\n49 U.S.C. 5 60122 and 49 C.F.R. 5 190.225 require that in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, degree\nof Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to pay the\npenalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on Respondent's\nability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.\nRespondent's failure to determine the proper hnctioning of PRVs necessary for the safe operation\nof its pipeline system created a risk to public safety and the environment. In the event\nRespondent's pipeline facility were to experience a sudden increase in pressure, unintended\namounts of stress on the pipeline could cause a rupture if the pressure increase was not controlled\nby the PRVs. Accordingly, it is vital that Respondent determine whether each PRV protecting the\nsystem is functioning properly.\nIn its Response, Respondent requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated for\nseveral reasons. Respondent explained that the valves cited in the Notice were routinely tested and\nthat the PRV failures were an isolated incident. Respondent also attributed the PRV failures to a\ncommon manufacturer and installation position. Finally, Respondent detailed the corrective action\nit has taken to ensure future compliance with 49 C.F.R. 5 195.428(a).\nRespondent requested mitigation or elimination of the proposed civil penalty because it had\nroutinely tested the faulty PRVs and their failure was an isolated incident. Testing of the PRVs in\nquestion does not justify reducing the civil penalty, because Respondent did not ensure that each\nTRV was in proper operating condition. When OPS inspected the PRVs at the ,4rlingtcr, Stzticn,\n10 of the 12 PRVs would not open, opened above 110% of set point or could not be isolated for\ntesting. The high percentage of failures at the Arlington Station was not representative of an\nisolated incident.\n\n\n\n3\nRespondent also requested mitigation or elimination of the proposed civil penalty by attributing the\nPRV failures to a common manufacturer and installation position. Respondent is responsible for\nensuring that each PRV on its pipeline system is compatible with requirements for the safe\noperation of Respondent's system, regardless of the make or installation properties of the PRV.\nFinally, Respondent requested mitigation or elimination of the proposed civil penalty based on\nsubsequent corrective action. Respondent has replaced the faulty PRVs as well as notified pipeline\noperation managers to ensure station thermal relief valves are part of Respondent's inspection\nprogram. Since Respondent is under an affirmative duty to comply with pipeline safety regulations\napplicable to its pipeline system, I find the corrective action taken after the OPS inspection does not\njustify reducing the civil penalty.\nAccordingly, I find no justification for reducing the civil penalty in this case. Having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $14,000.\nRespondent has the ability to pay this penalty without adversely affecting its ability to continue in\nbusiness.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed\nto: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney\nAeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $14,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in\naccordance with 31 U.S.C. 5 3717, 31 C.F.R. 5 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. 5 89.23. Pursuant to those\nsame authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is\nnot made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in\nreferral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United States District\nCourt.\nWARNING ITEMS\nThe Notice did not propose a civil penalty or corrective action for the following items but warned\nRespondent that it should take appropriate action to correct the items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. 5 195.402 - failing to prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual of\nwritten procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and\nhandling abnormal operations and emergencies. At the time of the inspection, Respondent\ndid not follow its written procedures concerning pig traps. On the Eagle Line North, at Bell\njuilciion, MP 98.34, both the pig trzip main valve and kicker valve were found in the closed\nposition. Respondent's written company Policy states that, \"all traps will be left open via\nthe kicker valve to prevent overpressure of the trap\" and \"during normal operations a valve\nto this receiver will be left in the open position to prevent over pressuring of this receiver\ntrap.\"\n\n\n\n49 C.F.R. $$ 195.402 and 195.430 - failing to follow written procedures for maintaining\nproperly operating firefighting equipment at each pump station and breakout tank area.\nWhile Respondent's procedures require monthly inspection of its fire extinguishers,\nRespondent did not perform monthly inspections for all fire extinguishers at the Sour Lake\ntank farm in April, May, June, and July 2003.\nRespondent is warned that if it does not take appropriate action to correct these items, enforcement\naction will be taken if a subsequent inspection reveals a violation.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. $ 190.2 15, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this\nFinal Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this Final\nOrder and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition automatically\nstays payment of the assessed civil penalty. However, if Respondent submits payment for the civil\npenalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative action and the right to petition for\nreconsideration is waived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt.\n/7\nDate Issued\n~ s z c i a t e Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":11347}