{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520115018M","title":"CENEX PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2011-07-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.452(f), 195.452(f)(3), 195.452(f)(5), 195.452(j), 195.452(j)(4)(i).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520115018m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520115018m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520115018m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520115018M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving CENEX PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(f),  195.452(f)(3),  195.452(f)(5),  195.452(j),  195.452(j)(4)(i). The case was opened on 2011-07-26 and is reported as closed as of 2011-11-30. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520115018M_closure letter_11302011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520115018M/520115018M_closure%20letter_11302011.pdf\n\n520115018M_closure letter_11302011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520115018M/520115018M_closure%20letter_11302011_text.pdf\n\n520115018M_notice of amendment_07262011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520115018M/520115018M_notice%20of%20amendment_07262011.pdf\n\n520115018M_notice of amendment_07262011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520115018M/520115018M_notice%20of%20amendment_07262011_text.pdf\n\n520115018M_Operator Response to Notice_09202011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520115018M/520115018M_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_09202011.pdf\n\n520115018M_notice of amendment_07262011_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJuly 26, 2011\nMr. Daniel Knepper\nPresident and Chief Operating Officer\nCenex Pipeline Company\n803 Highway 212 South\nLaurel, MT 59044\nCPF 5-2011-5018M\nDear Mr. Knepper:\nOn August 16 through September 03, 2010, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code,\ninspected CHS’s integrity management program procedures to include the Cenex Pipeline\nCompany (Cenex) in Laurel, Montana.\nOn the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within\nCenex’s plans or procedures, as described below:\n1. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas\n§195.452(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An integrity\nmanagement program begins with the initial framework. An operator must continually\nchange the program to reflect operating experience, conclusions drawn from results of\nthe integrity assessments, and other maintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation\nof consequences of a failure on the high consequence area. An operator must include,\nat minimum, each of the following elements in its written integrity management\nprogram:\n\n\n\nA) §195.452(f)(5) A continual process of assessment and evaluation to maintain a\npipeline's integrity (see paragraph (j) of this section);\nCHS’s Integrity Management Program (IMP) pertaining to continual process of assessment\nand evaluation refers a CHS Procedure titled \"Data Validation and Integration\" at the\nfollowing locations: Article 4.5 Assessment Planning page 21, Article 6.5 Repair Procedures\npage 52, Article 7.9 Evaluating Integrity Assessment Results page 61, and Verification and\nRemediation Digs page 182. However, this procedure could not be found within their IMP\nManual. CHS/Cenex must amend their IMP Manual to reference the correct procedures that\nCHS/Cenex will be used during the evaluation process and other various pipeline integrity\nactivities to meet the requirement of Part 195.452(f)(5).\nB) §195.452(f)(5) A continual process of assessment and evaluation to maintain a\npipeline's integrity (see paragraph (j) of this section);\n(j) What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to maintain a\npipeline's integrity?\n(1) General. After completing the baseline integrity assessment, an operator\nmust continue to assess the line pipe at specified intervals and periodically\nevaluate the integrity of each pipeline segment that could affect a high\nconsequence area.\nCHS’s IMP pertaining to continual process of evaluation and assessment the line pipe at\nspecified intervals after completing the baseline integrity assessment is inadequate. At the\ntime of inspection, CHS/Cenex described a process for completing annual evaluation and\nassessment reviews of their pipeline that was in disagreement with CHS’s IMP Article 7.1\n\"Annual Evaluation and Assessment Review. CHS/Cenex must amend their procedures to\naccurately describe the process that CHS/Cenex will be used during their annual evaluation\nand assessment reviews of their pipeline to meet the requirement of Part 195.452(j)(1).\nC) §195.452(f) (5) A continual process of assessment and evaluation to maintain a\npipeline's integrity (see paragraph (j) of this section);\n(j) What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to maintain a\npipeline's integrity?\n(4) Variance from the 5-year intervals in limited situations-\n(i) Engineering basis. An operator may be able to justify an engineering basis\nfor a longer assessment interval on a segment of line pipe. The justification\nmust be supported by a reliable engineering evaluation combined with the use\nof other technology, such as external monitoring technology, that provides an\nunderstanding of the condition of the line pipe equivalent to that which can be\nobtained from the assessment methods allowed in paragraph (j)(5) of this\nsection. An operator must notify OPS 270 days before the end of the five-year\n(or less) interval of the justification for a longer interval, and propose an\nalternative interval. An operator must send the notice to the address specified\nin paragraph (m) of this section.\n2\n\n\n\nCHS’s IMP did not include the PHMSA address where notifications pertaining to the\nvariance from the five (5) year assessment intervals are required to meet the requirement of\nPart 195.452(j)(4)(i).\nD) §195.452(f)(4) Criteria for remedial actions to address integrity issues raised by\nthe assessment methods and information analysis (see paragraph (h) of this\nsection);\n(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n(1) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to address all\nanomalous conditions the operator discovers through the integrity assessment\nor information analysis. In addressing all conditions, an operator must\nevaluate all anomalous conditions and remediate those that could reduce a\npipeline's integrity. An operator must be able to demonstrate that the\nremediation of the condition will ensure the condition is unlikely to pose a\nthreat to the long-term integrity of the pipeline. An operator must comply with\n§ 195.422 when making a repair.\n(i) Temporary pressure reduction. An operator must notify PHMSA, in\naccordance with paragraph (m) of this section, if the operator cannot meet the\nschedule for evaluation and remediation required under paragraph (h)(3) of\nthis section and cannot provide safety through a temporary reduction in\noperating pressure.\n(ii) Long-term pressure reduction. When a pressure reduction exceeds 365\ndays, the operator must notify PHMSA in accordance with paragraph (m) of\nthis section and explain the reasons for the delay. An operator must also take\nfurther remedial action to ensure the safety of the pipeline.\nCHS’s IMP did not include the PHMSA address where a notification must be sent whenever\nCenex cannot adhere to either a 365 day limit on a pressure reduction or repair/remediation\nof an anomaly within the required time limits. Article 12.6 from their IMP Manual states, \"If\nCHS determines that it cannot complete repair/remediation of an anomaly within the time\nlimits specified in its Repair/Remediation Criteria, CHS will submit such notice to the\naddress specified in §195.452(m). The notice will provide a complete explanation of the\nsituation and proposed plan for repair/remediation completion.\" An operator’s procedure\ncannot refer to Part 195 for instructions that its personnel must take to be in compliance with\nPart 195.\nE) §195.452(f)(4) Criteria for remedial actions to address integrity issues raised by\nthe assessment methods and information analysis (see paragraph (h) of this\nsection);\n(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n(4) Special requirements for scheduling remediation\n(i) Immediate repair conditions. An operator's evaluation and remediation\nschedule must provide for immediate repair conditions. To maintain safety, an\noperator must temporarily reduce operating pressure or shut down the\npipeline until the operator completes the repair of these conditions. An\n3\n\n\n\noperator must calculate the temporary reduction in operating pressure using\nthe formula in Section 451.6.2.2 (b) of ANSI/ ASME B31.4 (incorporated by\nreference, see § 195.3). An operator must treat the following conditions as\nimmediate repair conditions:\n(A) Metal loss greater than 80% of nominal wall regardless of dimensions.\n(B) A calculation of the remaining strength of the pipe shows a predicted\nburst pressure less than the established maximum operating pressure at the\nlocation of the anomaly. Suitable remaining strength calculation methods\ninclude, but are not limited to, ASME/ANSI B31G (``Manual for Determining\nthe Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines'' (1991) or AGA Pipeline\nResearch Committee Project PR-3-805 (``A Modified Criterion for Evaluating\nthe Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipe'' (December 1989)). These\ndocuments are incorporated by reference and are available at the addresses\nlisted in Sec. 195.3.\n(C) A dent located on the top of the pipeline (above the 4 and 8 o'clock\npositions) that has any indication of metal loss, cracking or a stress riser.\n(D) A dent located on the top of the pipeline (above the 4 and 8 o'clock\npositions) with a depth greater than 6% of the nominal pipe diameter.\n(E) An anomaly that in the judgment of the person designated by the operator\nto evaluate the assessment results requires immediate action.\nCHS’s IMP for responding to immediate repair conditions did not reference their O&M\nManual's Safety-Related Condition Report (SRCR) procedure. A safety-related condition\nmust be filed if the repair cannot be made within five (5) days of determination or ten (10)\ndays of discovery. CHS/Cenex must amend their procedures to include a reporting\nrequirement pertaining to safety-related condition report.\nF) §195.452(f)(3) An analysis that integrates all available information about the\nintegrity of the entire pipeline and the consequences of a failure (see paragraph\n(g) of this section);\n(g) What is an information analysis? In periodically evaluating the integrity of\neach pipeline segment (paragraph (j) of this section), an operator must analyze\nall available information about the integrity of the entire pipeline and the\nconsequences of a failure. This information includes:\n(3) Data gathered in conjunction with other inspections, tests, surveillance\nand patrols required by this Part, including, corrosion control monitoring and\ncathodic protection surveys;\nCHS’s IMP pertaining to information analysis did not adequately demonstrate the decision\nprocess to meet the requirement of Part 195.452(g). CHS/Cenex conducted their annual\nevaluations by using the CHS risk analysis algorithm as a tool to integrate and analyze\nintegrity information related to their pipeline. However, the risk analysis algorithm under\n“Threats” categories did not include all the factors that may have been discovered since the\nlast annual evaluation and assessment review. As an example, there were no risk scoring\nitems for defects found attributable to the third party intervention, corrosion, pipe\nmanufacturing, poor construction practices, operator error, or natural events. It is important\n4\n\n\n\nthat the risk assessment is reflected the defects found in the past attributable to various\nthreats to the pipeline if the risk assessment is used as a tool for information analysis during\nevaluations.\nResponse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.237. Enclosed as\npart of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance\nProceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be advised that all\nmaterial you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly\navailable. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a\nsecond copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment\nredacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice,\nthis constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further\nnotice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIf, after opportunity for a hearing, your plans or procedures are found inadequate as alleged in this\nNotice, you may be ordered to amend your plans or procedures to correct the inadequacies (49\nC.F.R. § 190.237). If you are not contesting this Notice, we propose that you submit your\namended procedures to my office within 60 days of receipt of this Notice. This period may be\nextended by written request for good cause. Once the inadequacies identified herein have been\naddressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement action will be closed.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Cenex maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment (preparation/revision of plans, procedures)\nand submit the total to Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration.\nIn correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2011-5018M and, for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 G. Davis (#129363)\n5\n\n520115018M_closure letter_11302011_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nNovember 30, 2011\nMr. Daniel Knepper\nPresident and Chief Operating Officer\nCenex Pipeline Company\n803 Highway 212 South\nLaurel, MT 59044\nCPF 5-2011-5018M\nDear Mr. Knepper:\nOn August 16 through September 3, 2010 a representative from the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to chapter 601 of 49 United States Code,\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Cenex Pipeline Company‘s (Cenex)\nintegrity management program procedures in Laurel, Montana. As a result of the inspection,\nCenex was issued a Notice of Amendment on July 26, 2011, which proposed amendment of\nyour integrity management program procedures.\nCenex submitted its amended procedures on September 20, 2011. My staff reviewed the\namended procedures, and it appears that the inadequacies outlined in this Notice of\nAmendment have been corrected.\nThis letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank\nyou for your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 (G Davis, #129363)","truncated":false,"body_characters":15333}