{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520075037","title":"NUSTAR TERMINALS OPERATIONS PARTNERSHIP L. P. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2007-10-19","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.432, 195.565, 195.573, 195.581.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520075037.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520075037.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520075037","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520075037","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving NUSTAR TERMINALS OPERATIONS PARTNERSHIP L. P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.432,  195.565,  195.573,  195.581. The case was opened on 2007-10-19 and is reported as closed as of 2010-03-17. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520075037_FinalOrder_03172010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520075037/520075037_FinalOrder_03172010.pdf\n\n520075037_FinalOrder_03172010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520075037/520075037_FinalOrder_03172010_text.pdf\n\n520075037_NOPV PCO letter_10192007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520075037/520075037_NOPV%20PCO%20letter_10192007.pdf\n\n520075037_nopv pco letter_10192007_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520075037/520075037_nopv%20pco%20letter_10192007_text.pdf\n\n520075037_operator response to notice_11162007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520075037/520075037_operator%20response%20to%20notice_11162007.pdf\n\n520075037_nopv pco letter_10192007_text.pdf\n\nspNT io coMvcu, Ncr REGI&Tia'\nHardcopy Eiectroittcally\nii of copies L& Date~7\n12300 W Dakota Ave, Suite 110\nLakewood, CO 80228\nU. S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\nOctober 19, 2007\nMr. Bill Dungan, Terminal Manager\nShore Terminals\n9420 NW St. Helens Road\nPortland, OR 97231\nCPF 5-2007-5037\nDear Mr. Dungan:\nOn March 26, 2007, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected your\nformerly known as Mobil breakout tank farms 1, 2 and 3, and the adjoining formerly known as\nTime Oil tank farm 4 in Portland, Oregon.\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. $195. 432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\nEach operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and\nlow-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according to section 4 of API\n\n\n\nStandard 653. However, if structural conditions prevent access to the tank\nbottom, the bottom integrity may be assessed according to a plan included in the\noperations and maintenance manual under $195. 402(c)(3).\nRecords were unavailable at the time of the inspections to substantiate what efforts\nhave been historically untaken to mitigate atmospheric corrosion, nor what future plans\nhad been mitiated to correct continually advancing atmospheric corrosion problems.\n$195. 565 How do I install cathodic protection on breakout tanks?\nAfter October 2, 2000, when you install cathodic protection under Sec. 195. 563(a)\nto protect the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank of more than 500 barrels\n(79. 5m3) capacity built to API Specification 12F, API Standard 620, or API\nStandard 650 (or its predecessor Standard 12C), you must install the system in\naccordance with API Recommended Practice 651. However, installation of the\nsystem need not comply with API Recommended Practice 651 on any tank for\nwhich you note in the corrosion control procedures established under Sec.\n195. 402(c)(3) why compliance with all or certain provisions of API Recommended\nPractice 651 is not necessary for the safety of the tank.\nAt the time of the inspection, the operator acknowledged that a cathodic protection\nsystem is not mstalled in any of the tank farms. Additionally, the Operation and\nMaintenance procedures manual mdicated no provision as to why a corrosion control\nsystem is unnecessary.\n3. $195. 573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(d) Breakout tanks. You must inspect each cathodic protection system used to\ncontrol corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank to ensure that\noperation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with API\nRecommended Practice 651. However, this inspection is not required if you note\nin the corrosion control procedures established under Sec. 195. 402(c)(3) why\ncompliance with all or certain operation and maintenance provisions of API\nRecommended Practice 651 is not necessary for the safety of the tank.\nAt the time of the inspection the Operation and Maintenance procedures manual\nindicated no provision as to why compliance with all or certain operation and\nmaintenance provision of API Recommended Practice 651 is not necessary for the\nsafety of breakout tanks.\n$195. 581 Which pipelines must I protect against atmospheric corrosion and what\ncoating material may I use?\n(a) You must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to\nthe atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this section.\n\n\n\n(b) Coating material must be suitable for the prevention of atmospheric\ncorrosion.\nAt the time of the inspection atmospheric corrosion was advanced and widespread,\nespecially between horizontal piping and pipe supports within tank farms 1, 2, 3 and 4.\nPro osed Com liance Order\nPursuant to 49 United States Code $ 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration proposes to issue a Comphance Order to Shore Terminals. Please refer to the\nProposed Compliance Order that is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.\nRes onse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline\nOperators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response\noptions. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is\nsubject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive\nmaterial qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U. S. C. 552(b), along with the complete\noriginal document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you\nbeheve qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the\nredacted mformation quahfies for confidential treatment under 5 U. S. C. 552(b). If you do not\nrespond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to\ncontest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline\nSafety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final\nOrder.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2007-5037 and for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nChri oi\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 J. Kenerson (¹118899, ¹118913)\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code $ 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety-\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Shore Terminals a Compliance Order\nincorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Shore\nTerminals with the pipeline safety regulations:\nl. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to inspection of in-service\nof breakout tanks, Shore Terminals must develop a record-keeping method to\ninspect atmospheric corrosion of in-service breakout tanks.\nIn regard to Item 2 of the Notice pertaining to installation of a cathodic\nprotection on breakout tanks, Shore Terminals must install cathodic protection\nfacilities within all its breakout tanks or present written evidence why a\ncorrosion control system is unnecessary.\nIn regard to Item 3 of the Notice pertaining to monitoring external corrosion\ncontrol, Shore Terminals must comply with the provisions of API\nRecommended Practice 651 or show why compliance is not necessary for the\nsafety of breakout tanks.\nIn regard to Item 4 of the Notice pertaining to which pipelines must be\nprotected against atmospheric corrosion and what coating material to use, Shore\nTerminals must mitigate the atmospheric corrosion conditions on each pipeline\nor portion of pipeline within each of the four tank farms exposed to the\natmosphere, except pipehnes under paragraph (c) of $195. 581.\nShore Terminals shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this compliance Order and submit the total to\nChristopher Hoidal, Director, Western Region, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration. Costs shall be reported in two categories: 1)\ntotal cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and\nanalyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other\nchanges to pipeline infrastructure.\n\n520075037_FinalOrder_03172010_text.pdf\n\nMAR 17 2010\nMr. Mike Poirier\nHSE Director\nShore Terminals, LLC\n9420 NW St. Helens Road\nPortland, OR 97231\nRe: CPF No. 5-2007-5037\nDear Mr. Poirier:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and finds that Shore Terminals, LLC, has completed the actions specified in the Notice\nto comply with the pipeline safety regulations. Therefore, this case is now closed. Service of the\nFinal Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided 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. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7009 1410 0000 2472 5231]\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 )\nShore Terminals, LLC, )\na subsidiary of NuStar Energy, L.P., )\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\n) CPF No. 5-2007-5037\nFINAL ORDER\nOn March 26, 2007, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Shore Terminals,\nLLC (Shore or Respondent) in Portland, Oregon. The inspection covered several tank farms and\nbreakout tanks, located along the Columbia River, which store and transport hazardous liquids\nfrom the Olympic Pipeline prior to reinjection into the Kinder Morgan pipeline for transportation\nto Eugene, Oregon. Shore Terminals, LLC, is a subsidiary of NuStar Energy, L.P., which owns\n8,417 miles of pipeline, 82 terminal facilities, four crude oil storage tank facilities and two\nasphalt refineries with a combined throughput capacity of 104,000 barrels per day.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated October 19, 2007, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Respondent had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.432, 195.565, 195.573, and 195.581.\nShore responded to the Notice by letters dated November 16, 2007, December 14, 2007, and\nJune 18, 2008 (collectively, Response). Shore did not contest the allegations of violation but\nprovided information concerning the corrective actions it had taken. Respondent did not request\na hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\n1 http://www.nustarenergy.com/ (last accessed March 8, 2010).\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Shore did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part\n195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), which states:\n§ 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n(a) ….\n(b) Each operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-service\natmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according\nto section 4 of API Standard 653. However, if structural conditions\nprevent access to the tank bottom, the bottom integrity may be assessed\naccording to a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual\nunder § 195.402(c)(3).\nThe Notice alleged that Shore violated § 195.432(b) by failing to inspect the physical integrity of\nin-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks. In particular, the\nOPS inspection revealed that there was no evidence of any prior inspections taking place, or\nplans to conduct any future inspections, to detect and remedy the tanks’ growing atmospheric\ncorrosion problems. Although Shore stated in its Response that the API 653 inspections were\nperformed on a periodic basis and that the records were readily available to substantiate\ncompliance, Respondent did not supply any further evidence regarding these inspections and\ninstead agreed to meet the terms of the proposed compliance order for this item. Accordingly,\nbased upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Shore violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by\nfailing to inspect the physical integrity of its in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel\naboveground breakout tanks.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.565, which states:\n§ 195.565 How do I install cathodic protection on breakout tanks?\nAfter October 2, 2000, when you install cathodic protection under\n§ 195.563(a) to protect the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank of\nmore than 500 barrels (79.5m3) capacity built to API Specification 12F,\nAPI Standard 620, or API Standard 650 (or its predecessor Standard 12C),\nyou must install the system in accordance with API Recommended\nPractice 651. However, installation of the system need not comply with\nAPI Recommended Practice 651 on any tank for which you note in the\ncorrosion control procedures established under §195.402(c)(3) why\ncompliance with all or certain provisions of API Recommended Practice\n651 is not necessary for the safety of the tank.\n\n\n\n3\nThe Notice alleged that Shore violated § 195.565 by failing to install cathodic protection systems\non any of its in-service breakout tanks having more than 500 barrels of capacity or to provide\nreasons as to why a corrosion control system was not necessary under API Recommended\nPractice (RP) 651. The OPS inspection report also indicated that a Shore official admitted that\nno cathodic protection systems were installed on any of the breakout tanks. Respondent did not\ncontest this violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Shore\nviolated 49 C.F.R. §195.565 by failing to install cathodic protection systems in aboveground\nbreakout tanks of more than 500 barrels capacity.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d), which states:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) ….\n(d) Breakout tanks. You must inspect each cathodic protection system\nused to control corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank\nto ensure that operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance\nwith API Recommended Practice 651. However, this inspection is not\nrequired if you note in the corrosion control procedures established under\n§195.402(c)(3) why compliance with all or certain operation and\nmaintenance provisions of API Recommended Practice 651 is not\nnecessary for the safety of the tank.\nThe Notice alleged that Shore violated § 195.573(d) by failing to include any provisions about\ninspection of the cathodic protection systems on aboveground breakout tanks in its Operation\nand Maintenance Manual. The Notice further alleged that Shore’s manual did not indicate any\nreasons as to why compliance with API RP 651 was unnecessary. The OPS inspection report\nalso indicates that a Shore official admitted that no cathodic protection system was installed on\nany of the breakout tanks, making regular inspection of those systems impossible. Respondent\ndid not contest this violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that\nShore violated 49 C.F.R. §195.573(d) by failing to install and inspect cathodic protection\nsystems on qualifying breakout tanks.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.581(a)-(b), which states:\n§ 195.581 Which pipelines must I protect against atmospheric corrosion and what\ncoating material may I use?\n(a) You must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is\nexposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this\nsection.\n(b) Coating material must be suitable for the prevention of\natmospheric corrosion.\n\n\n\n4\nThe Notice alleged that Shore violated § 195.581(a)-(b) by failing to protect against atmospheric\ncorrosion on numerous sections of aboveground piping at its facility. The OPS inspection report\nincluded photographs of the extensive corrosion on the aboveground piping associated with the\nbreakout tanks. Respondent did not contest this allegation. Accordingly, based upon a review of\nall of the evidence, I find that Shore violated 49 C.F.R. §195.581(a)-(b) by failing to properly\nclean and coat each pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere with a suitable material for the\nprevention of atmospheric corrosion.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to items 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the Notice for\nviolations of §§ 195.432(b), 195.565, 195.573(d), and 195.581(a)-(b). Under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601. The Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions\nspecified in the proposed compliance order:\n1. With respect to Item 1, Shore confirmed that it has since developed\nthe necessary corrosion inspection procedures and has performed\ncorrosion inspections on a periodic basis accordance with those\nprocedures. Shore also asserts that records of these inspections are\nstored and remain available for review. Further, Shore completed\nthe painting of 4 tanks and the inspection of 5 tanks during 2007,\nas well as 11 more tank inspections by the end of 2008. By June\n30, 2009, Shore completed inspections of all remaining breakout\ntanks to the satisfaction of the Director.\n2. With respect to Item 2, Shore secured a contractor to install\nimpressed cathodic protection systems for the breakout tanks in\nMarch 2008. Installation of cathodic protection systems that meet\nthe requirements of the regulation was completed by June 30,\n2009.\n3. With respect to Item 3, Shore has developed procedures in its\nmanual for inspecting the cathodic protection systems since the\ninstallation. These procedures reflect the standards named in the\nregulation to the satisfaction of the Director.\n\n\n\n5\n4. With respect to Item 4, Shore conducted an atmospheric corrosion\ninspection of its aboveground piping on December 17, 2007.\nShore conducted the inspection both visually and with the use of\nspecialized instruments for measuring pipe wall and coating\nthickness and pipe-to-ground potentials. Shore submitted the\nconclusions and recommendations of this inspection in its\nResponse.\nAccordingly, I find that these actions comply with the requirements of the Proposed Compliance\nOrder and therefore are not included in this Order.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon receipt of service.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":19853}