{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420075010","title":"CITGO PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2007-04-02","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.128, 195.406(b), 195.410(a)(1), 195.412(a), 195.420(c), 195.432(b), 195.573(d), 195.579(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420075010.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420075010.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420075010","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420075010","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving CITGO PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.128,  195.406(b),  195.410(a)(1),  195.412(a),  195.420(c),  195.432(b),  195.573(d),  195.579(a). The case was opened on 2007-04-02 and is reported as closed as of 2012-09-10. Proposed civil penalty: $94,000. Assessed civil penalty: $32,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420075010_Closure_09102012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075010/420075010_Closure_09102012.pdf\n\n420075010_Closure_09102012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075010/420075010_Closure_09102012_text.pdf\n\n420075010_Decision on Reconsideration_12292011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075010/420075010_Decision%20on%20Reconsideration_12292011.pdf\n\n420075010_Decision on Reconsideration_12292011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075010/420075010_Decision%20on%20Reconsideration_12292011_text.pdf\n\n420075010_FinalOrder_04142011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075010/420075010_FinalOrder_04142011.pdf\n\n420075010_FinalOrder_04142011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075010/420075010_FinalOrder_04142011_text.pdf\n\n420075010_Petition for Reconsideration_06102011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075010/420075010_Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_06102011.pdf\n\nCPF 4-2007-5010 Citgo Pipeline Company NOPV PCP PCO.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075010/CPF%204-2007-5010%20Citgo%20Pipeline%20Company%20NOPV%20PCP%20PCO.pdf\n\ncpf 4-2007-5010 citgo pipeline company nopv pcp pco_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075010/cpf%204-2007-5010%20citgo%20pipeline%20company%20nopv%20pcp%20pco_text.pdf\n\nCPF 4-2007-5010 Citgo request for hearing_05042007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420075010/CPF%204-2007-5010%20Citgo%20request%20for%20hearing_05042007.pdf\n\n420075010_Closure_09102012_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nSeptember 10, 2012\nMr. Jim Sanders\nGeneral Manager, Terminal and Pipelines\nCITGO Petroleum Corporation\n1293 Eldridge Parkway\nHouston, TX 77077\nCPF 4-2007-5010\nDear Mr. Sanders\nOn April 14, 2011, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to CITGO Petroleum Corporation a Final Order in the above reference case. This order\nincluded a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the\ndocumentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been\ndetermined that you have complied with terms of this order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Curtis L. Craig; Vice President & General Counsel, Explorer Pipeline\n\n420075010_Decision on Reconsideration_12292011_text.pdf\n\nDEC 29 2011\nMr. Jim Sanders\nGeneral Manager, Terminal and Pipelines\nCITGO Petroleum Corporation\n1293 Eldridge Parkway\nHouston, TX 77077\nRe: CPF No. 4-2007-5010\nDear Mr. Sanders:\nEnclosed please find the Decision on Reconsideration issued in the above-referenced case. It\ngrants your Petition for Reconsideration, in part. Service of the Decision by certified mail is\ndeemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided 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: Mr. Rod Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nMr. Bruce Oakley, Partner, Hogan Lovells US LLP, 700 Louisiana Street,\nSuite 4300 Houston, TX 77002\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [71791000164203033168]\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)\nCITGO Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 4-2007-5010\n)\nPetitioner. )\n______________________________)\nDECISION ON RECONSIDERATION\nIn an April 14, 2011 Final Order, I found that CITGO Pipeline Company (CITGO or Petitioner)\nhad committed several violations of the hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations. I assessed\nPetitioner a civil penalty of $82,000 and ordered the company to complete certain remedial\nactions for committing those violations. On June 10, 2011, after receiving an extension of the\n20-day filing deadline in 49 C.F.R. § 190.215(a), CITGO submitted this timely Petition for\nReconsideration (Petition).\nPetitioner seeks reconsideration of two of the findings of violation and associated civil penalties\nand compliance items in the Final Order. First, CITGO argues that I erred in finding that the\ncompany violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) by failing to perform adequate inspections of the right-\nof-way (ROW) for the Eagle Pipeline. Petitioner further argues that even if the evidence\nsubstantiates that violation, the terms of the resulting compliance order are unlawful, and that its\nsale of the Eagle Pipeline to Explorer Pipeline Company (Explorer) on October 31, 2007, has\nrendered that aspect of this case moot. Second, CITGO argues that I erred in finding that it\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d) and (e) by failing to have adequate cathodic protection for the\naboveground breakout tanks at its Sour Lake Tank Farm. Petitioner asks that this finding of\nviolation be withdrawn, and that the associated $50,000 civil penalty be rescinded.\nI am denying CITGO’s request for reconsideration of the finding that it violated the ROW\ninspection requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a). However, I am granting Petitioner’s request\nfor reconsideration of the finding that it violated the cathodic protection requirements of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d) and (e). The $50,000 civil penalty and associated compliance items for\nthat violation are withdrawn for lack of sufficient evidence.\nBackground\nFrom February to June 2006, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of\nCITGO’s facilities and records in Texas and Oklahoma. As a result that inspection, the Director,\n\n\n\n3\nSouthwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to Petitioner, by letter dated April 2, 2007, a Notice of\nProbable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice).\nThe Notice alleged that CITGO had committed several violations of the hazardous liquid\npipeline safety regulations. Two of those violations related to Petitioner’s failure to comply with\nthe ROW inspection requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) and cathodic protection\nrequirements in 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d) and (e). The Notice proposed assessing the company a\ntotal civil penalty of $94,000 and ordering Petitioner to perform certain remedial measures for\ncommitting those violations. The Notice further proposed finding that CITGO had committed\ncertain other probable violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and warning the company to take\nappropriate corrective action to address them or be subject to future enforcement action.\nPetitioner responded to the Notice by letters dated May 4, 2007 (Response) and June 25, 2007\n(Supplemental Response). CITGO contested several of the alleged violations and the proposed\ncivil penalty amounts and compliance activities. Petitioner also requested a hearing, which was\nheld on July 24, 2007, at the PHMSA Southwest Region Office in Houston, Texas. Mr.\nChristian A. Garza represented Petitioner as counsel. CITGO later submitted post-hearing\nmaterial for the record by letter dated August 23, 2007 (Closing).\nOn April 14, 2011, I issued the Final Order in this case. I found that Petitioner had committed all\nbut two of the alleged violations, assessed the company a reduced civil penalty of $84,000, and\nordered CITGO to take certain actions to comply with the hazardous liquid pipeline safety\nregulations. On April 21, 2011, Petitioner’s new counsel, Mr. Bruce D. Oakley, asked for an\nextension of the 20-day deadline for seeking reconsideration of the Final Order. 49 C.F.R. §\n190.215. That request was granted, and on June 10, 2011, CITGO filed this timely Petition.\nPetitioner seeks reconsideration of two of the findings of violation and associated civil penalties\nand compliance activities in the Final Order. First, CITGO argues that I erred in finding that the\ncompany violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) by failing to perform adequate inspections of the Eagle\nPipeline ROW. Petitioner further argues that even if the evidence substantiates that violation, the\ncompliance activities imposed in the Final Order are unlawful and, have become moot as a result\nof its sale of the Eagle Pipeline to Explorer on October 31, 2007. Second, CITGO argues that I\nerred in finding that the company violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d) and (e) by failing to have\nadequate cathodic protection for the aboveground breakout tanks at its Sour Lake Tank Farm.\nPetitioner asks that this finding of violation be withdrawn, and that the associated $50,000 civil\npenalty be rescinded. CITGO included a number of exhibits with its Petition in support of these\narguments.\nStandard of Review\nA respondent may petition the Associate Administrator for reconsideration of a final order.\nReconsideration is not a right of appeal or to seek a de novo review of the record.1\nIt is an\nopportunity to present the Associate Administrator with previously unavailable information or to\nrequest that any errors in the final order be corrected. Requests for consideration of additional\nfacts or arguments must be supported by a statement of reasons as to why those facts or\n1 49 C.F.R. § 190.215(a)-(e).\n\n\n\n4\narguments were not presented prior to the issuance of the final order. Repetitious information or\narguments will not be considered.\nAnalysis\nI. Request for consideration of additional facts or arguments under\n49 C.F.R. § 190.215(b).\nSection 190.215(b) of the Pipeline Safety Regulations states that “[i]f the respondent requests the\nconsideration of additional or arguments, the respondent must submit the reasons they were not\npresented prior to issuance of the final order.” CITGO included 26 exhibits with its Petition. Six\nof those exhibits consist of materials submitted prior to the issuance of the Final Order in this\ncase, i.e., Petitioner’s Response, Supplemental Response, Closing, and certain attachments. Two\nother exhibits contain documents related to the actions of Explorer, the operator who purchased\nthe Eagle Pipeline after the July 2007 hearing. The remaining exhibits contain a variety of\nmaterials not submitted prior to the issuance of the Final Order, including:\n• Excerpts from CITGO’s Non-Refining Operations Manual, dated February 2, 2006;\n• A blank CITGO surface inspection report;\n• ROW inspection logs from 2006 and 2007;\n• An undated CITGO Pipeline Compliance List with information on its ROW inspection\nprogram;\n• Documents related to a September 2004 ROW maintenance contract between CITGO and\na third party, J B L Plant Services;\n• An August 2005 service contract between CITGO and J B L Plant Services;\n• Additional documentation, dated July and August 2006, on the ROW maintenance\ncontract between CITGO and J B L Plant Services.\n• Invoices, purchase orders, and emails for ROW maintenance from J B L Plant Services to\nCITGO from 2007;\n• Work orders for ROW maintenance and clearing from June 2006 to August 2007;\n• A May 10, 2011 third-party analysis of the cathodic protection program for the breakout\ntanks at the Sour Lake Tank Farm;\n• November 13, 2003, December 2, 2004, July 26, 2005, and September 26, 2006 facility\nsurveys for the Sour Lake Tank Farm; and\n• Additional information, including prior inspection and operating reports, for the rectifier\nat the Sour Lake Tank Farm.\nWith the exception of the two exhibits related to the activities of Explorer, CITGO did not\nprovide any explanation as to why the new exhibits submitted with its Petition should be\nconsidered at this stage of the proceeding. Such an explanation is required under § 190.215(b).\nAccordingly, I find that Petitioner did not comply with the requirements of § 190.215(b) and am\nexcluding Exhibits 1, 5, 6A-6B, 7A-7G, 10, 11A-11D, and 12A-12B from the record.\nII. Request for reconsideration of the finding that CITGO violated the ROW\ninspection requirements in 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a).\n\n\n\n5\nCITGO seeks reconsideration of the finding that the company failed to perform adequate\ninspections of the Eagle Pipeline ROW as required under 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a). Specifically,\nPetitioner contends that I erred in concluding that it was not contesting that allegations in the\nNotice, and that I failed to require that PHSMA meet its burden of proof in sustaining that\nfinding of violation. CITGO further argues that I failed to consider all of the relevant\nexculpatory and mitigating evidence, and that the company did not receive adequate notice of the\nspecific basis for its alleged violation of § 195.412(a). Petitioner also argues that even if the\nevidence substantiates that allegation, the compliance activities imposed in the Final Order are\nunlawful, and that its sale of the Eagle Pipeline on October 31, 2007, to Explorer Pipeline\nCompany renders the compliance order moot.\nCITGO has not presented a persuasive basis for withdrawing this finding of violation. The\nPipeline Safety Regulations state, in relevant part:\n§ 190.211 Hearing.\n(a) A request for a hearing provided for in this part must be accompanied by a\nstatement of the issues that the respondent intends to raise at the hearing. The\nissues may relate to the allegations in the notice, the proposed corrective action\n(including a proposed amendment, a proposed compliance order, or a proposed\nhazardous facility order), or the proposed civil penalty amount. A respondent's\nfailure to specify an issue may result in waiver of the respondent's right to raise\nthat issue at the hearing. . . .\nIn its hearing request, Petitioner did not object to the allegation that it violated the ROW\ninspection requirements in 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a). Rather, CITGO acknowledged in its\nResponse that “[t]he issue cited is that large trees overhanging the right-of-way obscure it from\naerial surveillance,” and “agree[d] that this is an important issue and will undertake a focused\ninspection of its rights-of-way from the air to identify any areas that actually obscure the right-\nof-way from aerial surveillance.” Petitioner also stated in its Supplemental Response that it was\n“assessing its current canopy trimming program to reduce problem areas.” Such statements,\nparticularly in a document submitted by counsel, indicate that CITGO agreed with the merits of\nthe allegation of violation, not that the company disputed it.\nMoreover, even if Petitioner intended to raise such an objection, the evidence of record supports\nthe finding of violation. As noted in the Violation Report, the OPS inspector observed areas of\novergrowth on the Eagle Pipeline ROW that would prevent the performance of adequate aerial\ninspections, and CITGO’s employees stated those areas would be subject to ground surveillance\nin the future. The OPS inspector also submitted photographic evidence of obstructed areas of the\nEagle Pipeline ROW near the North Arbuckle Block Valve, the West Trinity Block Valve,\nWynnewood Junction, the north Houston suburbs, and Milepost 87.6. Such evidence is more\nthan sufficient to sustain the alleged violation. Accordingly, I am denying Petitioner’s request\nfor reconsideration of the finding that it failed to perform adequate inspections of the Eagle\nPipeline ROW as required under 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a).\nWith respect to CITGO’s remaining arguments, the terms of the compliance order do not\nmandate that Petitioner perform aerial inspections of the Eagle Pipeline ROW. CITGO is merely\nrequired to take certain steps, e.g., identification and clearing of overgrowth, to ensure that its\naerial inspections are being conducted in an appropriate manner. Nothing in the compliance\n\n\n\n6\norder precludes Petitioner from using other appropriate means of performing ROW inspections,\nincluding ground surveillance.2\nNor has Petitioner’s sale of the Eagle Pipeline to Explorer Pipeline Company rendered the terms\nof the compliance order moot. CITGO is the moving party and bears the burden of establishing\nmootness,\n3 i.e., that “[t]he controversy between the parties has thus clearly ceased to be ‘definite\nand concrete’ and no longer ‘touch(es) the legal relations of parties having adverse legal\ninterests[,]’”4 and that it is “impossible . . . to grant ‘any effectual relief whatever’[.]”5 That is a\n“heavy burden” where, as here, the allegation of mootness arises from the moving party’s own\nvoluntary conduct, i.e., Petitioner’s sale of the Eagle Pipeline.\n6 In such a case, CITGO “bears\nthe formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior\ncould not reasonably be expected to recur[,]”7 and that “interim relief or events have completely\nand irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.”8\nPetitioner states that it sold the Eagle Pipeline to Explorer on October 31, 2007, that CITGO no\nlonger has any authority to perform inspections of that pipeline ROW, and that Explorer has its\nown program for complying with the requirements in § 195.412(a). Petitioner has also submitted\na September 30, 2009 letter from Explorer to OPS, which states that “Explorer has conducted an\naerial survey [of the Eagle Pipeline] to determine locations where ROW clearing needs to be\nenhanced to facilitate weekly aerial patrol,” and that “[c]ertain ROW clearing has been\ncompleted.”\nThe evidence provided is not sufficient to show that the sale of the Eagle Pipeline has\n“completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects” of Petitioner’s violation of the ROW\ninspection requirements. Explorer’s letter indicates that aerial inspections of the Eagle Pipeline\nROW are still being conducted, and that additional clearing of the ROW may be needed in\ncertain areas. This indicates that CITGO’s failure to comply with the requirements in\n§ 195.412(a) is still adversely impacting the condition of the ROW. As important, the evidence\ndoes not make “absolutely clear” that Petitioner has no obligation to ensure that these actions are\ncompleted. The specific terms of CITGO’s transaction with Explorer are not of record in this\nproceeding, including Petitioner’s obligations, if any, for conduct that arose prior to its sale of\n2 PHMSA has broad discretion to ensure compliance with the Pipeline Safety Laws and Regulations, and in cases of\nnon-compliance such discretion can include requiring operators to take remedial actions that might not otherwise be\nrequired in the absence of a violation. 49 U.S.C. § 60118.\n3 Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167, 189-90 (2000).\n4 DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 317 (1974) (per curiam) (quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S.\n227, 240-41 (1937))\n5 Church of Scientology of California v. U.S., 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653\n(1895)).\n6 Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 189-190 (citing United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn., 393 U.S.\n199 (1968); City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289 (1982)).\n7 528 U.S. at 190.\n8 Los Angeles County v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979).\n\n\n\n7\nthe Eagle Pipeline. Therefore, I find that CITGO has not met its heavy burden of establishing\nthat the terms of the compliance order are moot.\nIII. Request for reconsideration of the finding that CITGO violated the cathodic\nprotection requirements in 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d) and (e).\nCITGO requests reconsideration of the finding in the Final Order that it violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.573(d) and (e) by failing to have adequate cathodic protection for the aboveground\nbreakout tanks at its Sour Lake Tank Farm. Petitioner argues that OPS has not submitted the\nevidence required to sustain that violation, i.e., that its case rests solely on the fact that one of the\nfour cathodic protection beds was out of service at the time of the inspection, but that the record\ndoes not contain any evidence to show that the breakout tank was not receiving adequate\ncathodic protection from the three remaining in-service beds.\nI find CITGO’s arguments persuasive. OPS bears the burden of proof in an enforcement action\nand must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that all of the elements necessary to sustain\na violation are present in a particular case.\nthat one of the four cathodic protection beds for the breakout tank at the Sour Lake Tank Farm\nwas out of service. However, the record does not contain any additional evidence, such as test\nresults or an expert opinion, to demonstrate that the breakout tank was not receiving adequate\ncathodic protection from the three remaining beds. Accordingly, I am withdrawing the finding in\nthe Final Order that CITGO violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d) and (e) by failing to have adequate\ncathodic protection for the aboveground breakout tanks at its Sour Lake Tank Farm and\nrescinding the $50,000 civil penalty for that violation.\n9 As Petitioner notes, OPS’s case is based on the fact\nRELIEF GRANTED\nBased on the information provided in the Petition, a review of the relevant portions of the record,\nand for the reasons stated above, I am withdrawing the finding in the Final Order that CITGO\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d) and (e) by failing to have adequate cathodic protection for the\naboveground breakout tanks at its Sour Lake Tank Farm and rescinding the $50,000 civil penalty\nfor that violation. The remainder of the Final Order is affirmed without modification.\nThis Decision is the final administrative action in this proceeding.\n_____________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n9 In the Matter of Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., Decision on Reconsideration, CPF No. 5-2005-5023, p. 4-5 (Dec.\n16, 2009); In the Matter of Butte Pipeline Co., Final Order, CPF No. 5-2007-5008, p. 2, n. 3 (Aug. 17, 2009); see\nSchaeffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 56-58 (2005).\n\ncpf 4-2007-5010 citgo pipeline company nopv pcp pco_text.pdf\n\nU. S. Oepartment\nof Transportation\nPipeline and\nHazardous Sttatertats Safety\nAdmtnistratlon\n8701 South Gessner, Suite 1110\nHouston. TX 7707S\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPI IANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nApril 2, 2007\nJim Sanders\nVice President, Operations\nCitgo Pipeline Company\n1293 Eldridge Parkway\nHouston, TX 77077\nCPF 4-2007-5010\nDear Mr. Sanders:\nDuring the weeks of February 6 — 10, March 6 - 10, April 3 — 7, and May 31 - June 2, 2006, a\nrepresentative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),\npursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected CITGO Pipeline Company's\n(CITGO) operations and maintenance procedures, and records, and conducted field inspections\nof your Sour Lake district pipelines and tank farm, the Eagle Line south pipeline unit, from\nHouston to Arlington, TX, and the Eagle Line north pipeline unit from Arlington, TX to the\nDrumrigrtt, OK area. An inspection of the Tulsa control center for the pipeline units was also\nconducted as part of these standard inspections.\nAs a result of the inspections, 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:\n1. rJ 195. 128 Station Piping\nAny pipe to be installed in a station that is subject to system pressure must meet the\napplicable requirements of this subpart.\n\n\n\nThe regulation requires that materials for permanent installation in facility piping be\nsuitable, and meet the requirements of referenced standards. ABME B31. 4 does not list\nrubberized, braided hoses as suitable for permanent installation in pipeline service.\nDrag Reducing Agent (DRA) is introduced at a number of pump stations on the OITGO\npipeline systems. The DRA is pumped into the station piping from permanently located\ntank and pump assemblies, but is being introduced into the pipeline system through\nbraided, rubber covered hoses, casually laid on the ground between pump and the\npipeline.\nIn addition, the rubber hoses laid on the ground present a tripping, or snagging safety\nhazard.\n2. &tf &35A06 Maximuiim operating pressure\nb. No operator may permit the pressure in a pipe!ine during surges or other\nvarialio&ss from nord!el operations to exse, . di 1I10 percent of tltie operating\npressure lllmit establlished under paragraph (al of this sect(on. I=aoh operator\nmust provid'e adequate controls and protectlive equ!pnaent to cir&ntrr&l the\npriessure within thiis limit.\nPipeline must be protected against over pressures and surges that would exceed ';l10%\nof the MOP established for the pipeline Adequate controls and protective equipment to\ncontrol the pressure within this limit must be prowded. CITGO was unable to provide\ndocumentation that surge pressures have been car&side!ed:, . rtr that' t'lie pigsk!Ine is\nadequately protected from surges.\n3. &9 595A10 Line markers\n(a!' Except ss providled' in pasagraph (9&]& of this section, sxach &rperatoi shall\nplace andi m&sintaiin line markers over eaclh buiried pi&pelfne In adcorr!;anccx with the\nfallowing:\n(0;I Markers midst be located at each put&lip road crossing, at each railroad\na&rossing, , snd In sufficient number along the r&areain der of. eacih buir led Itrte so that\nits location is aiccurately known.\nCITGO does not have sufficient markers along their pipelines in some areas. When\ncrossing cultivated agricultural fields, often the markers on the far side of the field could\nnot be seen. From Valve sites, looking in both directions, the next marker for i\"e\npipeline could not be seen. The pipeline markers across Northgate Forest golf course\nare flush mounted markers The markers are from Area Pipeline, and the phone\nnumbers on the markers are no longer valid.\n\n\n\n4. It 195. 412 Inspection of Right of Way\n(a) Each opet'ator shall. at iritel'va'Is not ettceefftpg 3 weeks, bgt at leakii 26 times\neach calendar year, Inspect the sitrfaaa Condihiona gn or adjacent to qpgii pipeline\nrightmf-way. Methodis of inspect!on !ncltttie vs(king, dr(vir&g, flyihg or other\nappropriate mean of traver'sing the rigl;t-of vtra„.\nIn order to perform pipeline surveillance, the right of way must \". 8 i'naintained so that the\nROW is clearly visible by the means of surveillance employed. Aerial surveillance is the\nprimary method of pipeline patrolling used by CITQO. Many areas of Cl JGG's pipelines\nhave ROW areas that are lined with targe trees The treeS liave branches that overhang\nthe ROW, and form a canopy that obscures the pipeline ROW from observation by aerial\nsurveillance. Some areas are overgrown with deep brush and grass that should be\ncleared to allow clear observation of the ROW during surveillance, and to allow visibilily\nof pipe ine markers.\n5. 4r 19. '5. 42ll Valjve Mainftenance\n(c) IEacki operator shall provide protection for each valve from t!Nattfthorized\noperatic. ni and fromm vandalism.\nA number of the CITGO pipeline valves do not have protection from vandalism at the\nsites. The valves were chained and locked to prevent unauthorized use, but these\nocations did not provide any deterrence against vandalism. I-ocal personn\"-. did provi~\nadditional information regarding this issue.\nDuring the inspections it was noted that CITG&&s preferred method of complying wit\", I\n195. 420(c) is to install locked chain link fencing around the valves. This was evident in\nthe three CITGO units that were inspected, where the majority of above ground valves\nwere located in locked fences.\nStime of the remaining valves in those units were located above ground with no fences.\ni4 number of above ground valves that were observed without fences by the inspeclc~ FA'\nthe three Texas and Oklahoma units, and the lack of fencing was pointed out to C ITiiGO\npersonnel at the time of the inspections.\nIt should be pointed out that a of the unfenced valves were i tain locked and most. htfd'\nsteel barricade posts installed. A review of your procedures by our inspectors did'rL'hatt\nreveal any alternative method of security for valve sites acceptable to you Ci!TiG&\nshould review their program, procedures, and facilities to ensure they are compliant with\nthis regulation.\n6. g95:432 Breakout tar &ks.\n(b) Each opetratnr shallins pi!. t. tie It, itysi cal intpgrtty of ln-a@vice atmoflPheric\narcr' Inw pass ue s: teel, atsvegrouna breako utltanirs according to akctton. 4, nf API\nX'ttrrdtnt d653', Hnvever, . if;structural conditio nb' i prevent access to, i!he tat ik bottom,\n3\n\n\n\nthe bottom integrity may be assessed according to a piap included in the\noperations and maintenance manual uhider t)195. 402tc)(3).\n(d) The intervals of inspection Speotfled by documents refehenqed in\nparagraphs (b) and (c) of this seiction begin on May 3. 1999, or on the opargtor's\nlast recorded date of the inspection, whichiever' is cacti„r.\nA number of tanks at the Sour Lake facility, Fauna Station, and Arlington Station have\nitems that are out of compliance with API-653. Most of these arise from items that are\nbeing missed during monthly inspections The purpose of the monthly inspections is to\ncatch minor items, such as vegetation growing adjacent to tanks, wa'bouts of sttbegi'\nfrom under tank bottom or animal burrows, cracks in concrete nng wall, leaks or diiba at\nmixers or flanges, etc These items should be noted in the monthly inspections, sis well\nas other items, as listed in the API-653 checklist. Once noted, the items should be\nresolved prior to the next inspection, or a reason given for why the item was not\nresolved.\nRegulations require that the operator of pipeline breakout tanks adopt an API-653 Istql;\ninspection schedule, and inspect breakout tanks on a frequency prescribed in the\nstandard. CITGO has adopted the API-653 tank inspection standard, but has not met\nthe required tank inspection frequency, as required by the standard and regulation.\nTwo tanks are overdue for their out of service internal inspections. Eight tanks have\nbeen missed for the in-service external inspections, and it appeeii's that eight tanks have\nbeen missed for their UT inspections. This information is based upon the operator's\nrecords for 'enk inspections.\n7, $1195. 573 Iitfhat must I do to itnociltror tecterntcj corrosion COntrolg\n(d) Breaks. ut I;an)rs. 'You mus t (inspect eac'h sathcitfie prot~ttion, sysfpm used, to\nco ntrol corresiorri on the bottom ctf an atto vegroutid' breakout (isnk to ensure that\noperatjenn and maintenance ef the sya4ern are in accordance vyifh, API\nRecomoxenided Pracfice 651. However, tltiis ittsspectktn is not requitiad ilf you note\nin the crtrrositon contrctl procWurssx cstaitdtshecl uindeti, Sec. 1I94 402(iclt3) why\nciomp'liance wdhi alP or certain'. opettatiort and nItsettenance previsions of API\nRecorntnended Pracfiice 651 is n~ol necessary forithy safety oftlltitsftank, ,\n(e) Correct(ve action. Youi umst ccxrrwt any fdiritttified deficiency in corrosion\ncontrol as renviuiredl by Sec. . 1f!5401'(bx):. IRowever, ,\nlf the dfjficiansy involves, a\npipeline ih an ibilegrity mar raacimctitt. procqract urtder Sec. 195. 452, you must\ncorrect the deffciieincy as required by Siec. 1ic)5. 452tfti).\nRegulation requires that the operator of pipeline breakout tanks maintain a cathodic\nprotection system on their breakout tanks which is in accordance with AF:. IMP-651. The\nregulations also require that if there is an identified deficiency, it must be corrected\nwithin a reasonable time.\n\n\n\nCitgo discovered that tank farm rectifier/ground bed, Srbu'r' I ake ¹3, had failed in\nOctober 2003. The records indicate that the system was failing as early as December\n2002. As of the standard inspection conducted February 6 - 10, 2006, the Sour Lake\n¹3 system was still down, and not providing Cathedic Protection to the tank farm. The\nsystem has been failing or out of service for over -1 years, without correction.\n8. II195. 579 What tnust I do to miticiate internal corrosion?\n(a} General, . If you transport any llih\", slrtlous liquid or carbon dig)ride '„habit would\ncoirroitie tbe pipeline, you must invesfi$Iate the corfos;ve effect rf the I)azardous\nliquid or carbohi dioxide on the pipellihe arid take adequate steps fo mitigate\nintertsali corrosion,\nCIYGO Pipeline has not performed adequate investigations of the corrosivity of the\nproducts on their pipelines and facilities. The operator has not performed inspections on\ndead legs, low points, facility and non-piggable pipe, and downstream of supplier taps. The\noperator also does not have adequate monitoring, and monitoring points that are insta led\nare installed incorrectly.\nPro osed Civil Penalt\nUnder 49 Unifed' States Code, g 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$100, 000 for each vio ation for each day the violations persists up to a maximum of $1, 000, 000\nfor any related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances\nand supporting documentatiori involved in the above probable wolation(s) anti\nrecommended that you be preliminanly assessed a civil penalty of $94, 000 as follows:\nItem number\n(1]\n(6]\n(7)\nFEALTY\n$:, '2:000]\n$32, 000\n$50, 000\nW~il t\nWith respect to item 5 we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved\nin this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement ai\".\n. Ibn or penal'y'\nassessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly cirrect these item(s).\nadvised that failure to do so may result in CITGO Pipeline Company being subject to additioi, al\nenforcement action.\nPro osed Com liance Order\nWith respect to items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 6, pursuant to 49 United States 'Code g 60116 the\nPipe ine and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration propose '':4' I&'ue a' t'ompliance Ckder\nto CITGO Pipeline Company. Please refer to the Proposed i. omp//ance Order whicn is\nenclosed and made a part of this Notice.\n\n\n\nRes onse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response O)5tlr)ns for Pipetirid Voerators\nin Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document antj rioti' '. tie respor'5\" offttons. Be\nadvised that all matenal you submit in response to this entorcement action is subject to b '\ng\nmade publicly available If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies fb'k\nconfidential treatment under 5 U. S. C. 552(b), along with the complete original documeri' ~c\"j\nmust provide a second copy' df the document with the portions you believe qua', ify fo, '\nconfidential treatment redacted aih'd an explanation of why you believe the redacted inforiftgt'Gri\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U. S. C. 552(b). If you dC r)c&t I'espond within 30 days\nof receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as, ieged in\nthis Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4~F7 I\" O and for each document\nyou submit, please prowde a copy in electronic format whenever possib e.\nSincerely,\nR trt, Saeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials . efety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Comptrancr. ' P'oceedings\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code g 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to CITGO Pipeline Company a Compliance Order\nincorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of ITGO Pipeline\nCompany with the pipeline safety regulations:\nRegarding item Number 1 of the Notice, CITGO must inspect all of their pipeline\nsystems to locate areas using temporary hose/ piping in permanent Iodatiene.\nProvide a plan to re-pipe the locations with piping that comply with standards,\nrecommended practices and regulations. Provide the results of the analysis to\nPHMSA Based on the results, CITGO should implement any modifications\nnecessary to assure that the pipelines are compliant with (~95. 128.\nIn regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice, CITGO must perform the necessary\nhydraulic analysis including the consideration of surges to insure that their pipelines\nwill not be over pressured during normal operations. Provide the results of the\nanalysis to PHKRSA. Based on the results, CITGO should implement any\nmodifications necessary to assure that the pipelines are compliant with $195. 406(b).\nIn regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice, pertaining to CITGO's pipeline systems,\nperform an inspection of all pipelines to locate areas lacking sufficient markers. If\nthere are areas where it is impractical to place markers, or because the markers are\nremoved or plowed under by the landowner, an alternativia method of ensuring the\nsafety of the public and the pipeline should be developed. In areas where fhefe' are\ninsufficient markers, develop a plan and time table to place markers to ensure\nCl I GO is in compliance with $195. 410(a)(1).\nIn regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice, pertaining to CITGQ's pipeline systdmS,\nperform an inspection of all pipelines to locate areas where ROW is over grown with\nbrush or tall grass, or areas where the ROW is overgil'owri by a canopy firWi\nsurrounding trees, preventing visibility from aerial surveila'fit. Develop a plan Nff@\ntime table to clear brush and canopy from ROW to ensure that C\"-ITGO is in\ncompliance with $195, 412(a). Until the ROW can be clea'red' a'nd made suitable for\naerial surveillance, develop an alternative surveillance method for affected areas.\nIn Regard to Items Number 6 of the Notice, pertaining tc GITGO's pipeline systems,\nreview CITGO's Tank Inspection program, Develop a plan arid time tab e to inspect\ntanks that have been missed, and ensure that inspections are performed according\nto the required schedules in the future. Ensure that monthly inspections note items\nas required by API 653, and that the items are addressed prior to sequential\ninspections. Ensure that inspection report documentation )La eiotnplete, and tl at items\nfrom all inspection reports are addressed, and documenrtedI, so that CITGO is in\ncompliance with II195. 432 and referenced API 653.\nIn regard to Item Number 7 of the Notice, pertaining to Cl I~~O's pipeline systems,\nreview C:ilTGO's CP data collection and evaluation to ensuire tliat if CP systems need\nrepair or replacement, they are addressed promptly and tltiant the pipelines and tarik~\nare protected. Develop a plan and time table to replace iiin&dequate iCP systems to\nbring CITGO into compliance with $195. 573.\n\n\n\n7. In regard to Item Number 8 of the Notice, pertaining to CITGO's pipeline systems,\nperform an assessment to fully determine the corrosive effect of the transported\nproducts on pipelines and all facilities. If there are areas that would be susceptible to\ninternal corrosion, perform inspections, install monitoring, and if active corrosion is\ndetermined, implement mitigation methods to ensure that CITGO is in compliance\nwith $195. 579.\n8, CITGO shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated\nwith fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to R. M. Seeley, Director,\nSouthwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Costs\nshall be reported in two categones: 1) total cost associa","truncated":true,"body_characters":78332}