{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520126006","title":"HOLLY ENERGY PARTNERS - OPERATING, L.P. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-03-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.428(a), 195.501.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520126006.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520126006.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520126006","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520126006","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving HOLLY ENERGY PARTNERS - OPERATING, L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.428(a),  195.501. The case was opened on 2012-03-13 and is reported as closed as of 2014-06-30. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520126006_closure letter_06302014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520126006/520126006_closure%20letter_06302014.pdf\n\n520126006_closure letter_06302014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520126006/520126006_closure%20letter_06302014_text.pdf\n\n520126006_Final Order_02282014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520126006/520126006_Final%20Order_02282014.pdf\n\n520126006_Final Order_02282014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520126006/520126006_Final%20Order_02282014_text.pdf\n\n520126006_NOPV PCO_03132012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520126006/520126006_NOPV%20PCO_03132012.pdf\n\n520126006_NOPV PCO_03132012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520126006/520126006_NOPV%20PCO_03132012_text.pdf\n\n520126006_operator response_04112012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520126006/520126006_operator%20response_04112012.pdf\n\n520126006_Final Order_02282014_text.pdf\n\nFEBRUARY 28, 2014\nMr. Michael C. Jennings\nChief Executive Officer\nHolly Energy Partners-Operating, L.P.\nSuite 1300\n2828 N. Harwood\nDallas, Texas 75201\nRe: CPF No. 5-2012-6006\nDear Mr. Jennings:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Holly Energy Partners-Operating, L.P.\nto comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have\nbeen completed, as determined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be\nclosed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing,\nor 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. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, OPS\nMr. Mark Cunningham, Vice President, Holly Energy Partners-Operating L.P.\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nHolly Energy Partners-Operating, L.P., ) )\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nCPF No. 5-2012-6006\nFINAL ORDER\nIn July and August of 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of four pipelines located in Salt Lake City, Utah.\nHolly Energy Partners – Operating L.P. (HEP or Respondent) operates the lines which are\nregistered with PHMSA under OPID 32011. The four pipelines transport refined petroleum\nproducts from the Woods Crossing Refinery to various destinations and are identified as: the 10-\ninch diesel line to Pioneer; the 8-inch gasoline line to Chevron; the 12-inch products line to\nUNEV; and the 8-inch gasoline line to Pioneer.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated March 13, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that HEP had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.428 and 195.501 and proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nHEP responded to the Notice by letter dated April 11, 2012, as supplemented by letter dated\nNovember 6, 2012 (Response). The company contested the allegations, offered additional\ninformation in response to the Notice, and did not demonstrate that any steps had been taken to\ncomplete any of the actions in the proposed compliance order. Respondent did not request a\nhearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\n1 See Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (March 13, 2012) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:\n§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator\nshall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at\nintervals not to exceed 7 ½ months, but at least twice each calendar year,\ninspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure\nregulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it\nis functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate\nfrom the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service\nin which it is used.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to properly\ninspect and test certain pipeline overpressure devices once a year. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that HEP failed to test eleven specified valves on 44 different occasions as more fully\ndescribed in the Notice. Respondent contested this allegation of violation arguing that: (1) the\npumps associated with these pipelines could not overpressure the pipelines; and (2) overpressure\nprotection of the pipelines downstream of the pumps was the responsibility of the refinery\ncompany, Holly Frontier Corporation (HFC), not HEP.\nWith respect to HEP’s argument that the pumps associated with the pipelines could not\noverpressure the pipelines, HEP provided schematics of the pumps and pipelines which OPS\nreviewed. First, OPS determined that gasoline could flow in reverse to the 10-inch Pioneer\ndiesel line depending on valve alignment resulting in over pressuring the line. Secondly, HEP\ndid not include any data showing the output pressure from any of the pumps. Third, the diagram\nincorrectly listed the maximum operating pressure (MOP) for the 8-inch Chevron and 10-inch\nPioneer lines and the pump curves appeared to date from the 1950’s, 60’s, and 70’s, yet the\nrecords provided to OPS by HEP did not include any information on any pump modifications. In\nthe absence of complete, accurate, and up-to-date information of this kind, Respondent could not\nhave made a reliable conclusion that the pumps could not over pressure the pipelines.\nEven if a pump cannot overpressure a pipeline, operators are required to provide protection\nagainst thermal overpressure events. However, HEP did not identify thermal pressure relief\nvalves necessary for blocked pipeline segments in the records provided and failed to provide\ndiagrams that would include at a minimum any thermal pressure relief devices or any pressure\ncontrol equipment for pipe segments that can be isolated by valves. Finally, HEP failed to\nestablish that thermal pressure increases are always within the MOP in the absence of a means to\ncontrol thermal pressure increases.\nWith respect to HEP’s argument that the pipeline overpressure protection equipment downstream\nof the pumps was the responsibility of HFC, not HEP, HEP contended that due to a private\nagreement between the companies, the only equipment belonging to HEP that it would be\nresponsible for under § 195.428 is the rupture rod associated with the 10-inch Pioneer Line.\n\n\n\n3\nSpecifically, HEP stated that its ownership of the Chevron 8-inch products pipeline begins “at\nthe connecting flanges to the inlet of the launching facility” and there are no remote operative\nvalves under HEP control upstream of the ownership break point. For the Pioneer 10-inch\nProducts Pipeline, HEP stated that its ownership also begins “at the connecting flanges to the\ninlet of the launching facility” and there are no remote operative valves under HEP’s control\nupstream of the ownership break point. HEP provides a portion of this agreement which\nreferences the 8-inch Chevron Line and the 10-inch Pioneer Line, but not the 12-inch UNEV\nLine or the 8-inch Pioneer Line.\nA private agreement dividing various responsibilities for a pipeline between two related\ncompanies, however, is irrelevant for determining whether Part 195 requirements apply to that\npipeline. By statute, the pipeline safety regulations apply to “any and all owners and operators of\npipeline facilities.” See 49 U.S.C. § 60102(a)(2)(A). Moreover, there is no question that the pipe\nsections involved transport product from the refinery to other locations and that the pressure\ncontrol equipment referenced by OPS in the Notice affects pipeline operations.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.428 by failing to timely inspect and test all the overpressure devices once a year on its\npipelines covered by this requirement.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.501, which states:\n§ 195.501 Scope.\n(a) This subpart prescribes the minimum requirements for operator\nqualification of individuals performing covered tasks on a pipeline facility.\n(b) For the purpose of this subpart, a covered task is an activity,\nidentified by the operator, that:\n(1) Is performed on a pipeline facility;\n(2) Is an operations or maintenance task;\n(3) In performed as a requirement of this part; and\n(4) Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.501 by failing to have all\nindividuals that performed covered tasks in operating the four pipelines meet the minimum\nqualification requirements. Specifically, the Notice alleged that on July 15 and August 2010,\nand on April 13, 2011, HEP allowed HFC control room personnel to perform covered OQ\n(operator qualification) tasks involving HEP’s pipelines without the proper Part 195\nqualifications.\nIn its Response, HEP states that the control room personnel “do not see both ends of the HEP\npipelines, they are not comparing the flow rate out of the line and they do not take emergency\ncalls from the public. Also, since the pumps cannot over pressure the pipelines thus the starting\nand stopping of the pumps does not affect the integrity of the pipeline.” HEP’s argument\namounts to the proposition that because control room personnel operating the HEP pipelines also\noperate refinery equipment, together with its argument in Item 1 above that the operation of the\npumps and pipelines does not present any over pressure threat, the control room personnel are\n\n\n\n4\nnot required to be qualified under the pipeline OQ program.\nAs discussed in Item 1 above, Respondent’s arguments that the pipelines were not covered by\nPart 195 were not persuasive. The fact that a person operating a pipeline also has other\nresponsibilities does not negate the pipeline qualification requirements. Moreover, HEP’s\nstatements are contrary to the information that was originally obtained from Mark Willey, a HFC\nsupervisor of personnel. During an initial interview with Mr. Willey, HFC’s personnel admitted\nperforming OQ tasks on the pipeline without the proper training. See Violation Report, at 10.\nHEP has presented no evidence that refutes the statements made by Mr. Willey. The performance\nof OQ tasks without the proper training and qualification is a violation of §195.501.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.501 by allowing individuals that were not OQ certified to perform various OQ tasks.\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 and 2 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.428, and 195.501, respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a),\neach person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a\npipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under\nchapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217,\nRespondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety\nregulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.428 (Item 1), within 60 days following\nreceipt of this Order, Respondent must identify all pressure control equipment that\ncould affect the integrity of its pipelines, and inspect and test them per § 195.428\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.501 (Item 2), within 60 days following\nreceipt of this Order, Respondent must qualify personnel performing pipeline control\nroom covered tasks per HEP’s operator qualification plan to ensure they meet all\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, Subpart G.\n3. Upon completion of Items 1 and 2, provide documentation demonstrating\ncompletion to Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA.\n4. It is requested (not mandated) that HEP maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this compliance order and submit the\ntotal to the Director. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories:\n(1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and\nanalyses; and (2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes\nto pipeline facilities.\n\n\n\n5\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay, the terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n520126006_closure letter_06302014_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJune 30, 2014\nMr. Mark Cunningham\nSenior Vice President\nHolly Energy Partners-Operating, L.P.\n2828 N. Harwood, Suite 1300\nDallas, Texas 75201-1507\nCPF 5-2012-6006\nDear Mr. Cunningham:\nOn February 6, 2014, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Holly Energy Partners-Operating, L.P. a corrected Final Order in the above-\nreferenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order. Based on our review of the\ndocumentation you provided, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of\nthis Order. From the response letter dated May 29, 2014, it appears that Holly Energy\nPartners has designated the 8-inch gasoline pipeline from Woods Cross Refinery to Pioneer as\nabandoned, as per the definition in §195.2 of Chapter 601 of 49 CFR. PHMSA will verify\nyour 8-inch gasoline pipeline is abandoned, in accordance with §195.402(c)(10).\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,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 C. Allen (#128410)","truncated":false,"body_characters":16297}