{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520166007","title":"CASPER CRUDE TO RAIL, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2016-10-17","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.266(a), 195.402(c)(13), 195.436.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520166007.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520166007.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520166007","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520166007","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving CASPER CRUDE TO RAIL, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.266(a),  195.402(c)(13),  195.436. The case was opened on 2016-10-17 and is reported as closed as of 2019-05-20. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520166007_Final Order_05202019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520166007/520166007_Final%20Order_05202019.pdf\n\n520166007_Final Order_05202019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520166007/520166007_Final%20Order_05202019_text.pdf\n\n520166007_NOPV PCO_10172016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520166007/520166007_NOPV%20PCO_10172016.pdf\n\n520166007_NOPV PCO_10172016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520166007/520166007_NOPV%20PCO_10172016_text.pdf\n\n520166007_Operator Response to Notice and Request For Hearing_01042017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520166007/520166007_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20For%20Hearing_01042017.pdf\n\n520166007_Final Order_05202019_text.pdf\n\nMay 20, 2019\nMr. Dan Borgen\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nUSD Partners, LP\n811 Main Street, Suite 2800\nHouston, Texas 77002\nRe: CPF No. 5-2016-6007\nDear Mr. Borgen:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation and finds that USD Partners, 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 effective upon the date of mailing, as provided under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Keith Benson, General Counsel, USD Partners, LP\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 )\nUSD Partners, LP, ) CPF No. 5-2016-6007\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom April 11 through 14, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the Casper Crude to Rail facilities and records\nof USD Partners, LP (USDP or Respondent), in Casper, Wyoming. The Casper Crude to Rail\nfacility is a 24-inch diameter pipeline that transports crude oil from the Spectra Energy storage\nfacility to the Casper Terminal, a rail facility located approximately six miles away. The entire\npipeline lies within a high consequence area.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated October 17, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that USD Partners, LP had\ncommitted three violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed ordering Respondent to take\ncertain measures to correct one of the alleged violations. The two warning items required no\nfurther action, but warned the operator to correct the probable violations or face possible future\nenforcement action.\nUSDP responded to the Notice by letter dated January 4, 2017 (Response).2 Respondent\ncontested the allegation associated with the Proposed Compliance Order and requested a hearing\non that item. A hearing was subsequently held via telephone conference on July 13, 2017, before\na Presiding Official from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA. At the hearing, Respondent was\nrepresented by counsel.\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report) (Oct. 14, 2016) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n2 On November 16, 2016, USDP requested a 45-day time extension to respond to the Notice, which was granted by\nPHMSA on December 1, 2016.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-6007\nPage 2\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(13), which states:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance,\nand emergencies.\n(a)…\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required\nby paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the\nfollowing to provide safety during maintenance and normal\noperations:\n(13) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator\npersonnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in\nnormal operation and maintenance and taking corrective action\nwhere deficiencies are found.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(13) by failing to\nperiodically review the work done by its personnel to determine the effectiveness of the\nprocedures used in normal operation and maintenance and take corrective action where\ndeficiencies are found. Specifically, the Notice alleged that USDP failed to adequately review\nthe effectiveness of its valve inspection procedures in that it used a 5-step Operator Qualification\nTask Specific Field Evaluation Form CT-22 for this purpose when it should have used a 19-step\nprocedure for valve inspections found in section 11.3 of the manual.\nIn its Response and during the hearing, USDP explained that its normal practice was to conduct\nthe periodic review of the work done by its personnel to determine the effectiveness of the\nprocedures and correct any deficiencies on an annual basis and because the OPS inspection\noccurred at the mid-point of that annual period, it thought the OPS inspector was reviewing the\nfield qualifications and performance of its valve inspection personnel. Respondent stated that\nbecause of this misunderstanding, it provided the 5-step Operator Qualification Task Specific\nField Evaluation form to the inspector.3 USDP also pointed out that it had conducted an annual\nreview of the operations and maintenance manual under § 195.402(a) on November 9, 2016, and\nthat no revisions to the valve inspection procedures were made as a result.4\nDuring the hearing, OPS noted that section 1.9 of USDP’s manual entitled “Operating Personnel\nProcedure Reviews” required Respondent to utilize Form 20.1 in documenting reviews\nconducted to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used by its personnel. OPS stated\nthat during the inspection, when Respondent was asked for documentation of the reviews\nconducted to determine the effectiveness of the valve inspection procedures, Respondent’s\npersonnel stated in response that Form CT-22 was being used for this purpose.5 With respect to\n3 USDP acquired the Casper Crude to Rail pipeline from an unrelated entity on November 17, 2015, and developed\nthe operations and maintenance manual at that time.\n4 Response, at 3-4.\n5 Region Recommendation, at 2.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-6007\nPage 3\nUSDP’s point that it had conducted an annual review of the operations and maintenance manual\nunder § 195.402(a) on November 9, 2016 and that no revisions to the valve inspection\nprocedures were made as a result, OPS noted that this was a separate requirement from the\nreviews required under § 195.402(c)(13).6\nHaving considered the information and arguments presented by Respondent, I find the\npreponderance of the evidence shows that USDP did not adhere to its own process set forth in\nsection 1.9 of its manual which directed the use of Form 20.1 for this purpose, not Form CT-22.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.402(c)(13) by failing to adequately review the effectiveness of its valve inspection\nprocedures during the relevant period.\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 3 in the Notice for violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 195.402(c)(13). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director\nindicates that Respondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance\norder:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.402(c)(13) (Item 3), Respondent has revised\nsection 1.9 of its operating and maintenance procedures, revised Form 20.1 to re-\ndesignate it as Form 20.18 and include a specific reference to 49 C.F.R. §\n195.402(c)(13) to ensure that its full valve inspection procedure is used during\nreviews of the effectiveness of its valve inspection procedures. In addition,\nRespondent submitted a completed Form 20.18 dated April 10, 2017 documenting the\nannual review for the April 2016 to April 2017 period.\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 1 and 2, 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:\n6 Region recommendation, at 3.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-6007\nPage 4\n49 C.F.R. § 195.266 (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain a record\ndocumenting the repair of weld number MLX 5 which was rejected by a weld\ninspector; and\n49 C.F.R. § 195.436 (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to provide\nprotection from vandalism and unauthorized entry around pumping stations and\nother exposed facilities at the Casper terminal.\nUSDP presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to address\nthe cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection,\nRespondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a petition for reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this\nFinal Order by Respondent. Should Respondent elect to do so, any petition submitted must\ncontain a statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nMay 20, 2019\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":10969}