{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520095001","title":"NGL SUPPLY TERMINAL COMPANY LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2009-01-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.214(a), 195.230(a), 195.577(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520095001.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520095001.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520095001","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520095001","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving NGL SUPPLY TERMINAL COMPANY LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.214(a),  195.230(a),  195.577(a). The case was opened on 2009-01-15 and is reported as closed as of 2010-07-14. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520095001_Final Order_07142010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095001/520095001_Final%20Order_07142010.pdf\n\n520095001_Final Order_07142010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095001/520095001_Final%20Order_07142010_text.pdf\n\n520095001_NOPV PCO_01152009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095001/520095001_NOPV%20PCO_01152009.pdf\n\n520095001_NOPV PCO_01152009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095001/520095001_NOPV%20PCO_01152009_text.pdf\n\n520095001_operator response_06232009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520095001/520095001_operator%20response_06232009.pdf\n\n520095001_Final Order_07142010_text.pdf\n\nJUL 14 2010\nMr. Kevin Clement\nPresident\nSemStream, LP\n6120 South Yale Avenue\nSuite 700\nTulsa, Oklahoma 74136-4216\nRe: CPF No. 5-2009-5001\nDear Mr. Clement:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and finds that SemStream, LP, has completed the actions specified in the Notice to\ncomply 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 [7005 1160 0001 0039 0683]\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)\nSemStream, LP, ) CPF No. 5-2009-5001\n)\nRespondent. )\n______________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween July 27 and July 31, 2008, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of\nSemStream, L.P., (SemStream or Respondent) in Sidney, Montana. Specifically, OPS inspected\nan 8.8-mile highly volatile liquid (HVL) pipeline that transports propane and butane from a\nprocessing facility to SemStream’s Sidney, Montana terminal. SemStream, a subsidiary of\nSemGroup, L.P., stores and transports natural gas liquid products throughout the United States.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated January 15, 2009, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that SemStream had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.214, 195.230 and 195.577 and proposed\nordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nSemStream responded to the Notice by letters dated February 9, 2009 and June 23, 2009\n(collectively, Response). SemStream did not contest the allegations of violation but provided\ninformation concerning the corrective actions it had taken. SemStream did not request a hearing\nand therefore has waived its right to one.\n1 On July 22, 2008, SemGroup, L.P., and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries and affiliates, including\nSemStream, LP, filed voluntary petitions in federal court seeking protection under Chapter 11 of the United States\nBankruptcy Code. See In re SEM Crude, L.P., et al, Case No. 08-11525, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of\nDelaware. Notwithstanding those filings, the issuance of this Final Order is permitted under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4)\n(2006) (“The filing of a petition [in bankruptcy] . . . does not operate as a stay . . . of the commencement or\ncontinuation of an action or proceeding by a governmental unit . . . to enforce such governmental unit’s or\norganization’s police and regulatory power, including the enforcement of a judgment other than a money judgment,\nobtained in an action or proceeding by the governmental unit to enforce such governmental unit’s or organization’s\npolice or regulatory power…”).\n\n\n\n2\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, SemStream did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a), which states:\n§ 195.214 Welding Procedures.\n(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder in accordance\nwith welding procedures qualified under Section 5 of API 1104 or Section\nIX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (incorporated by\nreference, see § 195.3). The quality of the test welds used to qualify the\nwelding procedure shall be determined by destructive testing….\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) by using a welding\nprocedure for the construction of the Sidney HVL Pipeline System which was not qualified\nunder API Standard 1104, Section 5. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the operator’s welding\nprocedure (ML-01) did not meet the requirements of API 1104, Section 5.6.2.3. 2 had developed the procedure by using Diamond Shamrock Refining and Marketing Company’s\nprocedures which were destructively tested in 1999. However, Respondent’s specific procedure,\nML-01, was not qualified using destructive testing. Respondent did not contest this allegation of\nviolation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) by using a welding procedure that was not qualified under\nSection 5 of API 1104.\nRespondent\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.214. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of\nhazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director has indicated that\nRespondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance order:\n2 AM. PETROLEUM INST., STANDARD 1104 § 5.6.2.3 (19th ed. 1999, errata October 31, 2001).\n\n\n\n3\nWith respect to the violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.214 (Item 1), SemStream\nresponded by letter on February 9, 2009 stating that they had requalified\nthe welding procedure and provided the new Procedure Qualification\nRecord. PHMSA requested further information by email on March 17,\n2009. SemStream provided a revised qualification by email on May 11,\n2009.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,\nthe compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 2 and 3, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to\nbe warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.230 (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to repair unacceptable\nwelds (#s 999 and 960) during construction of the Sidney HVL Pipeline System; and\n49 C.F.R. § 195.577 (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to alleviate interference\ncurrents. SemStream appeared to have stray current on its HVL Pipeline System.\nSemStream demonstrated in its Response that it had taken certain actions to address the cited\nitems. Accordingly, having considered such information, I find, pursuant to 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.205, that probable violations of 49 C.F.R. § 195.230 (Notice Item 2) and 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.577 (Notice Item 3) have occurred and Respondent is hereby advised to correct such\nconditions. In the event that OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent\ninspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":8526}