# HARVEST MIDSTREAM COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 420115004
- **title:** HARVEST MIDSTREAM COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2011-02-15
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.428(a), 195.436, 195.505(b), 195.573(a), 195.579(a).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420115004.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420115004.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420115004
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420115004
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving HARVEST MIDSTREAM COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.428(a),  195.436,  195.505(b),  195.573(a),  195.579(a). The case was opened on 2011-02-15 and is reported as closed as of 2013-01-22. Proposed civil penalty: $72,400. Assessed civil penalty: $45,100. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

420115004_Closure Letter_01222013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420115004/420115004_Closure%20Letter_01222013.pdf

420115004_Final Order_06122012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420115004/420115004_Final%20Order_06122012.pdf

420115004_Final Order_06122012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420115004/420115004_Final%20Order_06122012_text.pdf

420115004_NOPV PCP PCO_02152011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420115004/420115004_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_02152011.pdf

420115004_NOPV PCP PCO_02152011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420115004/420115004_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_02152011_text.pdf

420115004_Operator Response to NOPV PCP PCO_03152011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420115004/420115004_Operator%20Response%20to%20NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_03152011.pdf

420115004_NOPV PCP PCO_02152011_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
February 15, 2011
Mr. Steve Jacobs
President
Harvest Pipeline Company
1201 Louisiana, Suite 1400
Houston, Texas 77002
CPF 4-2011-5004
Dear Mr. Jacobs:
During the months August thru October 2010, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code
inspected your Southwest Pass 24 Oil Terminal facility located in Venice, LA. Records were
inspected in Houston, TX. As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed
probable violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.
The items inspected and the probable violation(s) are:
1. §195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at
intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in
the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to
exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each
pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of
pressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in
good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity
and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used.
Harvest failed to inspect and test three pressure limiting devices each calendar year, specifically
2009. During the inspection, Harvest provided PHMSA records of the tests that were



performed. These records were reviewed during the inspections and there was no
documentation provided at the time to demonstrate that three overpressure protection devices
on SW Pass 24 Terminal were performed for calendar year 2009. The available documentation
indicated that these devices were inspected on September 23, 2008. All Overpressure
Protection devices were inspected for calendar year 2010.
The following Overpressure Protection devices were missed in 2009:
Location ID# Type Manufacture
EPL Delivery line PR103 Pressure Relief Grove 83
Prover TR106/SWP-2 Thermal Relief Anderson Greenwood 8364
Station Suction TR108/SWP-1 Thermal Relief Anderson Greenwood G1PMCY6-4
The evidence demonstrates that the operator violated § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test
these overpressure protection devices at the required interval. In the event that such
inspections were, in fact, performed, the evidence demonstrates the operator violated
§195.404(c)(3) by failing to maintain a record of each inspection and test required by this
subpart for at least 2 years or until the next inspection or test is performed, whichever is longer.
2. §195.436 Security of facilities.
Each operator shall provide protection for each pumping station and breakout
tank area and other exposed facility (such as scraper traps) from vandalism and
unauthorized entry.
During the field inspection, the PHMSA inspector found that Harvest did not provide protection
at the SW Pass 24 Oil Terminal Facility in order to prevent vandalism and unauthorized entry as
required by §195.436. Additionally, Harvest’s “Breakout Tank In-service Visual Inspection
Report” which provides monthly inspection information (provided by the operator at the time of
the inspection) indicates that the facility is not secure.
3. §195.505 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program
shall include provisions to:
(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are
qualified;
While reviewing inspection records, PHMSA inspectors found that individuals had performed
covered tasks prior to being qualified. Harvest provided forms entitled “Operator Qualification
Solutions Group” for several individuals as qualification records. These records indicate the
earliest time an individual is qualified to perform a covered task. PHMSA reviewed these forms
during the inspection and found that an individual (GDB) performed covered task “CT03 Inspect
Cathodic Protection Rectifiers” twice on March 27, 2009 and twice on July 31, 2009. However,
the individual was not initially qualified to perform this covered task until October 11, 2009.
Another individual (GRJ) performed covered task “CT03” twice on May 8, 2009 and was not
qualified until June 28, 2009. Neither individual was observed by a qualified individual while
performing these tasks.



In addition, an individual (LRG) performed covered task “CT24 Inspect, Test and Calibrate
Relief Valves” on August 6, 2010 on three relief valves. However, this individual was not initially
qualified to perform this covered task until October 12, 2010. He was not observed by a
qualified individual.
4. §195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine whether cathodic
protection required by this subpart complies with Sec. 195.571:
(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each calendar year, but
with intervals not exceeding 15 months. However, if tests at those intervals are
impractical for separately protected short sections of bare or ineffectively coated
pipelines, testing may be done at least once every 3 calendar years, but with
intervals not exceeding 39 months.
Harvest failed to conduct tests of the cathodic protection system for the terminal piping and
breakout tanks #103 & 104 for each calendar year, specifically 2009. During the inspection,
Harvest provided PHMSA records of the tests that were performed. These records were
reviewed during the inspections and there was no documentation provided at the time to
demonstrate that the cathodic protection system for the terminal piping and breakout tanks #103
& 104 were performed for calendar year 2009. The available documentation indicated that
these test were performed on August 21, 2008 and again on April 16, 2010.
The evidence demonstrates that the operator violated § 195.573 by failing to test the cathodic
protection system at the required interval. In the event that such inspections were, in fact,
performed, the evidence demonstrates the operator violated §195.589(c) by failing to maintain a
record of each test required by this subpart as long as the pipeline remains in service.
5. §195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?
(a) General. If you transport any hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide that would
corrode the pipeline, you must investigate the corrosive effect of the hazardous
liquid or carbon dioxide on the pipeline and take adequate steps to mitigate
internal corrosion.
Harvest failed to investigate the corrosive effect of the product transported by its pipeline to
determine if it would corrode the pipeline. Harvest utilizes the procedure entitled “Hilcorp
Energy Company Pipeline Assets Corrosion Control Program” (Corrosion Procedure) last
revised 11-19-2007 as their corrosion control program procedures and to comply with 195.579.
During the procedures review, PHMSA inspectors found that Harvest did not follow “Section C
Internal Corrosion” of the Corrosion Procedure or take any other action to investigate the
corrosive effect of the product. Paragraph 1.a. of the procedure states:
“Corrosive gas or liquids will not be transported by pipeline unless the corrosive
effect of the liquid on the pipeline has been investigated and steps have been
taken to minimize internal corrosion (inhibitor and /or monitoring equipment). An
analysis of fluids and gases will be conducted to identify corrosive materials”.
During the inspection, PHMSA inspectors asked Harvest to demonstrate that they had
investigated the corrosive effect of the hazardous liquid. Harvest did not provide any



explanation nor documentation that showed they had performed the required investigation. In
addition, at the time of the inspection, Harvest was not using inhibitors to mitigate internal
corrosion and did not have a coupon corrosion monitoring program to determine corrosive
effects
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000
for any related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances
and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has
recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $72,400 as follows:
Item number PENALTY
Item 1 $14,100
Item 3 $42,500
Item 4 $15,800
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to items 2 and 5 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Harvest
Pipeline Company. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and
made a part of this Notice.
Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators
in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be
advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being
made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for
confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you
must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for
confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information
qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days
of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this
Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in
this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.



In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2011-5004 and for each document
you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
R. M. Seeley
Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Harvest Pipeline Company (Harvest) a
Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirement to ensure the compliance of
Harvest Pipeline Company with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. In regards to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to failure to provide protection
for breakout tank area; from vandalism and unauthorized entry, Harvest Pipeline
Company must provide security from vandalism and entry by unauthorized persons.
Harvest must provide this office its plans, procedures and records that demonstrate
that a process has been implemented or that barriers have been installed that
demonstrate compliance with 49 CFR §195.436.
2. In regards to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to the failure to investigate the
corrosive effect of the hazardous liquid on the pipeline, Harvest must investigate the
corrosive effect of hazardous liquids on its pipelines, including on “dead legs,” low-
flow lines, and infrequently used pump station lines. Harvest must review all relevant
procedures and amend them as necessary. Harvest must survey all applicable
segments of its pipeline facility and ensure that they are protected from corrosion
and are subject to internal corrosion inspection, testing, and monitoring that meet
applicable requirements. Based on this review and survey, Respondent must
develop a plan for conducting internal corrosion surveys in a manner consistent with
§ 195.579(a).
3. Aforementioned to be accomplished within 30 days following receipt of the Final
Order.
4. It is requested (not mandated) that Harvest maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the
total to R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories:
1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and
analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other
changes to pipeline infrastructure.

420115004_Final Order_06122012_text.pdf

JUNE 12, 2012
Mr. Steve Jacobs
President
Harvest Pipeline Company
1201 Louisiana, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF No. 4-2011-5004
Dear Mr. Jacobs:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $45,100, and specifies actions that need to be taken
by Harvest Pipeline Company to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty
payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the
terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this
enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed
effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Rod M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS
Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
Harvest Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 4-2011-5004
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From August to October, 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the Southwest Pass 24 Oil Terminal facility of
Harvest Pipeline Company (Harvest or Respondent) in Venice, Louisiana, and of its records in
Houston, Texas. Southwest Pass 24 Oil Terminal is a pump station with two breakout tanks and
interconnected piping located on an island at the mouth of the Mississippi River.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated February 15, 2011, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the
Notice proposed finding that Harvest had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and
proposed assessing a civil penalty of $72,400 for the alleged violations. The Notice also
proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
Harvest responded to the Notice by letter dated March 15, 2011 (Response). The company
provided an explanation of its actions and requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced.
Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:
§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator



2
shall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar
year, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at
intervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year,
inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure
regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it
is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate
from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service
in which it is used.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test
each pressure limiting device each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that three
pressure limiting devices had not been inspected and tested in 2009, or that, if such inspections
were in fact performed, that Respondent violated § 195.404(c)(3) by failing to maintain a record
of each inspection and test required by Subpart F of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 for at least 2 years or
until the next inspection or test is performed, whichever is longer.
1 Respondent did not contest
this allegation of violation, and indicated that it had taken steps to ensure that pressure limiting
devices were tested at the required frequency in the future.
of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to
inspect and test each pressure limiting device in calendar year 2009.
2 Accordingly, based upon a review
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.436, which states:
§ 195.436 Security of facilities.
Each operator shall provide protection for each pumping station and
breakout tank area and other exposed facility (such as scraper traps) from
vandalism and unauthorized entry.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.436 by failing to protect the
Southwest Pass 24 Oil Terminal Facility from vandalism and unauthorized entry. Evidence in
the record included Harvest’s “Breakout Tank In-service Visual Inspection Report,” which listed
the facility as not secured.
3
In its Response, Harvest made note of the “remote location of the island on which the terminal is
located,” and stated that it had believed that the terminal was exempt from PHMSA’s security
requirements because it is exempt from US Coast Guard (USCG) security requirements.
4
Harvest’s facility and operations must comply with all applicable federal regulations. The
remote location of the facility and its exemption from certain USCG requirements do not exempt
the facility from the Pipeline Safety Regulations.
Harvest stated that its “security-related activities have been reviewed” and stated that it “believes
1 Notice at 1.
2 Response at 2.
3 Violation Report, Exhibit B.
4 Response at 2.



3
the existing and improved components provide the appropriate security for the current
environment and conditions provided by the remote location of the facility and island.”5 Harvest
further stated that additional security measures, such as gates, cameras, fences, lighting, or a 24-
hour security guard, would not be cost-effective or provide significant additional security.
Harvest’s list of security-related components provided in its Response does not satisfy the
requirements of this regulation. Harvest stated that the terminal is manned 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week, and that it is patrolled twice daily by Harvest personnel, but provided no evidence of
this. Harvest stated that aerial surveillance is conducted twice weekly, but this frequency of
patrolling does not protect the facility from vandalism and unauthorized entry. Harvest
discussed the patrolling activities of EPL, another company that operates a facility on the same
island, and the USCG, and stated that “the USCG contacts EPL with any concerns, who in turn
contacts Harvest,” but did not provide any evidence of these monitoring activities or of any
formal arrangement with these entities. 6 Harvest also gave no evidence to support its claim of
significant cost.
provide the facility with adequate protection from vandalism and unauthorized entry.
7 In short, the improved security measures described in the Response do not
Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated
49 C.F.R. § 195.436 by failing to protect the Southwest Pass 24 Oil Terminal Facility from
vandalism and unauthorized entry.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b), which states:
§ 195.505 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.
The program shall include provisions to:
(a) …
(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered
tasks are qualified….
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b) by failing to ensure through
evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks were qualified. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that Harvest’s records showed that three individuals had performed covered tasks prior to
being qualified for those tasks on nine occasions.
8 Respondent did not contest this allegation of
violation, and stated that after the inspection it reviewed operator qualification to ensure that all
employees were up-to-date in their operator qualification.
9
Accordingly, based upon a review of
all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b) by failing to ensure
through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks were qualified.
5 Response at 2.
6 Response at 3.
7 Response at 4-5.
8 Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) at 2-3.
9 Response to the Notice (Response) at 5.



4
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a), which states in
relevant part:
§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine
whether cathodic protection required by this subpart complies with
§ 195.571:
(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each calendar
year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months. However, if tests at
those intervals are impractical for separately protected short sections of
bare or ineffectively coated pipelines, testing may be done at least once
every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months….
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a) by failing to conduct tests of
the cathodic protection on the pipeline at least once each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that Harvest failed to test the cathodic protection system on the terminal piping and
breakout tanks 103 and 104 for the year 2009, or that, if such inspections were in fact performed,
that Respondent violated § 195.589(c) by failing to maintain a record of each test required by
Subpart H of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 for as long as the pipeline remained in service.
10 Respondent
did not contest this allegation of violation, and stated that it had taken steps to ensure future
compliance.
violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a) by failing to conduct tests of the cathodic protection on the
pipeline at least once in calendar year 2009.
11 Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(a), which states:
§ 195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?
(a) General. If you transport any hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide
that would corrode the pipeline, you must investigate the corrosive effect
of the hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide on the pipeline and take
adequate steps to mitigate internal corrosion.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(a) by failing to investigate the
corrosive effect of the hazardous liquid on the pipeline. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
Harvest could not demonstrate that it had investigated the corrosive effects of the hazardous
liquid as required by § 195.579 and its own procedures.
12 In its Response, Harvest stated that it
believed it had satisfied the regulatory requirement by relying on the producers of the hazardous
liquid to analyze the product, take appropriate steps to address any corrosiveness in their
products, and inform Harvest of any such action.13
Harvest did not provide any evidence that it
10 Notice at 3.
11 Response at 5.
12 Notice at 3.
13 Response at 5.



5
had a formal agreement with the producers of the individual product streams or that it had
received reports from them about the corrosiveness of their product. Accordingly, based upon a
review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(a) by failing to
investigate the corrosive effect of the hazardous liquid on the pipeline.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s
ability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing
business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without
any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.
The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $72,400 for the violations cited above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $14,100 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), for failing to inspect and test each pressure limiting device each calendar
year. In its Response, Harvest requested a reduced penalty and noted several factors to warrant
this reduction, including its good history of violations, good faith attempts to comply, and quick
corrective actions after being notified of violations. Harvest did take action to make sure all
2010 inspections were in compliance, but corrective actions taken after the violation has been
discovered do not warrant a reduction in penalty.14 Harvest’s lack of prior offenses and the fact
that this offense did not result in an accident were factored into the proposed penalty.
proper functioning of pressure limiting devices is necessary to prevent a pipeline failure due to
overpressure, which could have serious consequences for people and the environment.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $14,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a).
15 The
Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $42,500 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b), for failing to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing
covered tasks were qualified. In its Response, Harvest requested a reduced penalty and noted
several factors to warrant this reduction, including its clean history of violations, good faith
attempts to comply, and its quick corrective actions after being notified of violations. Corrective
14 See, e.g., In the Matter of MidWestern Gas Transmission Co., Final Order, CPF 3-2010-1004, 2011 (August 11,
2011) (available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).
15 Pipeline Safety Violation Report CPF 4-2011-5004 (Violation Report) (on file with PHMSA) at 4, 27.



6
actions taken after the violation has been discovered, such as Harvest’s post-inspection review of
operator qualification to ensure that all employees are now up-to-date in their operator
qualification, do not warrant a reduction in penalty.
Upon review of the record, I find the proposed penalty is not reflective of the low gravity of the
violation, which “had a minimal impact on pipeline integrity or safe operation of the pipeline and
did not pose a significant threat to public safety or the environment.”16
I recognize, however,
that the multiple instances of violation warrant a higher penalty than a single instance of
violation would. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment
criteria, I assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $15,200 for violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b).
Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $15,800 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a), for failing to conduct tests of the cathodic protection on the pipeline at
least once each calendar year. In its Response, Harvest requested a reduced penalty and noted
several factors to warrant this reduction, including its clean history of violations, good faith
attempts to comply, and its quick corrective actions after being notified of violations. Harvest
appears to have made a good faith attempt to ensure future compliance by updating its inspection
calendar to include all devices at Southwest Pass 24 Oil Terminal, but corrective actions taken
after the violation has been discovered do not warrant a reduction in penalty. Harvest’s lack of
prior offenses and the fact that this offense did not result in an accident were factored into the
proposed penalty.
pipeline and for preventing the pipeline failures that can result from corrosion. Accordingly,
having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil
penalty of $15,800 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a).
17 Adequate cathodic protection is critical for controlling corrosion on a
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $45,100.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The
Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.
Failure to pay the $45,100 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate
in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
16 Violation Report at 18.
17 Violation Report at 19, 27.



7
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2 and 5 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.436 and 195.579(a) respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a),
each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a
pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under
chapter 601.
With regard to the proposed compliance order associated with Item 2, Harvest contended in its
Response that it had already reviewed its security activities and determined that “the existing and
improved components provide the appropriate security,” considering the remote location of the
demonstrate that the facility is protected from vandalism and unauthorized entry.
facility.18 However, as discussed above, the security measures taken do not adequately
With regard to the proposed compliance order associated with Item 5, Harvest stated in its
Response that it had taken steps to monitor corrosion and was in the process of updating its
corrosion control program and procedures.
an investigation of the corrosive effect of the product on its pipelines to the Director.
19 However, Harvest has not provided the results of
Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is
ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations
applicable to its operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 195.436 (Item 2), Respondent must provide the
Southwest Pass 24 Oil Terminal with protection from vandalism and entry by
unauthorized persons. Respondent must provide its plans, procedures, and records
demonstrating that a process has been implemented or that barriers have been
installed to the Director within 30 days of receipt of this Final Order.
2. With respect to the violation of § 195.579(a) (Item 5), Respondent must
investigate the corrosive effect of the hazardous liquid on the pipeline, including on
“dead legs,” low-flow lines, and infrequently used pump station lines. Respondent
must survey all applicable segments of its pipeline facility and ensure that they are
subject to inspection, testing, and monitoring for internal corrosion. Based on this
inspection, review, and survey, Respondent must develop a plan for conducting
internal corrosion surveys in a manner consistent with § 195.579(a) and must take
appropriate steps to mitigate internal corrosion. Respondent must review all relevant
procedures and amend them as needed. Respondent must demonstrate to the Director
that this has been accomplished within 30 days of receipt of this Final Order.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
18 Response at 2.
19 Response at 5-6.



8
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the
Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of
this Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline
Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC
20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA
will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by
the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other
requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of
any civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all
other terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
___________________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

420115004_Closure Letter_01222013.pdf

U.S. Department
8701 South Gessner, Suite 1110
of Transportation
Houston, TX 77074
Pipeline and
Administration
Hazardous Materials Safety
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
January 22, 2013
Mr. Steve Jacobs
President
Harvest Pipeline Company
1201 Louisiana Ste. 1400
Houston, Texas 77002
CPF 4-2011-5004
Dear Mr. Jacobs:
On February 15, 2011 the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
issued to Harvest Pipeline Company (Harvest), a Notice of Probable Violation,
Proposed Civil Penalty and Proposed Compliance Order. Based on our review of the
documentation you provided, it has been determined that you have complied with the
terms of this Notice.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect
to the matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
R. M. Seeley
Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 37487