{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120055016","title":"KIANTONE PIPELINE CORP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2005-11-04","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(b), 195.452(d)(1), 195.452(f)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120055016.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120055016.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120055016","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120055016","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving KIANTONE PIPELINE CORP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(b),  195.452(d)(1),  195.452(f)(1). The case was opened on 2005-11-04 and is reported as closed as of 2010-04-16. Proposed civil penalty: $50,000. Assessed civil penalty: $23,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120055016_Final Order_10132006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120055016/120055016_Final%20Order_10132006.pdf\n\nCPF_NO_1-2005-5016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120055016/CPF_NO_1-2005-5016.pdf\n\n120055016_Final Order_10132006.pdf\n\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nU.S. Department Washington, D.C. 20590\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\nOCT 1 3 2006\nMr. Fred Martin\nVice President, Supply and Transportation\nKiantone Pipeline Corporation\n15 Bradley Street\nP. 0.Box 780\nWarren, PA 16335-3299\nRE: CPF NO. 1-2005-501 6\nDear Mr. Martin:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety\nin the above-referenced case. It withdraws two of the allegations of violation, makes findings of\nviolation, requires certain corrective actions and assesses a civil penalty of $23,000. Your receipt\nof the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R.9 190.5. At such time that\nthe civil penalty is paid and the terms of the compliance order are completed, as determined by the\nDirector, Eastern Region, this enforcement action will be closed.\nSincerely,\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\ncc: Ms. Carole P. Sims, Senior Attorney\nMr. William H. Gute, Director, OPS Eastern Region\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of 1\nKIANTONE PIPELINE CORPORATION, ) CPF NO. 1-2005-5016\n1\n1\nRespondent.\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween May 10 - 12, 2005, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 4 601 17, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), Eastern Region, and\na representative of the State of New York Public Service Commission (NY-PSC), conducted an\ninspection of Respondent's Pipeline Integrity Management Program (IMP) at its offices in W.\nSeneca, New York. As a result of this investigation, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS, issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated November 4, 2005, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. 5 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that Respondent had committed violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, proposed\nassessing a total civil penalty of $50,000 for the alleged violations, and proposed that Respondent\ntake certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated, December 2,2005 (Response). Respondent\ncontested the allegations, offered information in explanation of the allegations and requested\nmitigation of the proposed penalty. Respondent also requested a hearing. The hearing was held on\nMarch 9, 2006 in Washington, D.C. On March 28, 2006, Respondent provided a post-hearing\nsubmission. In its post hearing submission, Respondent highlighted certain factual and legal points\nand introduced three exhibits in support of is position which contained new information not\nconsidered during the inspection..\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem l a in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. 5 195.452(f)(l) by not specifically\nusing the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) population data boundaries to properly\nidentify the extent of population-oriented High Consequence Areas (HCAs).\nItem :lbin the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. 5 195.452(f)(l) by not properly\nidentifying which pipeline segments could affect HCAs, as Respondent identified an Other\nPopulated Area (OPA) could affect from milepole 1.7 to milepoles 7.4 at Route 20A that is short of\nthe actual OPA. The actual OPA continues beyond milepole 7.4.\n\n\n\nItem l c in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. 5 195.452(0(1) by failing to\nproperly identify which pipeline segments could affect HCAs, as milepoles 0.0 - 1.7 and milepoles\n76.0 - 78.5 have not been reviewed for HCA's and potential inclusion in Respondent's IMP.\nRespondent depicted the OPA of metropolitan Buffalo as extending from milepole 1.7 and ending\nat milepole 7.4 at Rt. 20A.\nDuring the hearing and in its post-hearing submission, Respondent contended that the regulations\ndo not mention NPMS, do not specifically direct that NPMS must be used to determine the location\nand extent of HCAs, and there is no support for requiring the use of NPMS boundaries to determine\nHCAs. Respondent also questioned whether the Appendix is law. Respondent posed that even if\nthe Appendix is law, it complied with the use of Census Bureau data. Respondent took the position\nthat this is an attempt by OPS to subvert the rulemaking process through interpretation unsupported\nby the regulation's plain meaning. Respondent further argued that if the regulations do not require\nthe use of NPMS boundaries then Respondent could not have violated the law.\nOPS countered that Respondent's argument is a use of semantics in a clever attempt to discount the\nviolation. While the regulation does not specifically state that an operator must use NPMS, not every\nregulation identifies every possible method available to satisfy regulatory requirements, as they are\nmeant to be inclusive and not exclusive. NPMS is the established resource that collects HCA\ninformation for which pipeline operators are expected to address. OPS explained that the purpose\nfor creating Appendix C, rather than placing this material in the regulation, is to provide additional\nguidance and clarification for selected requirements in the rule. Appendix C was provided to assist\noperators in understanding the basic rule requirements and what is necessary for compliance.\nBecause the information in Appendix C is guidance, rather than mandatory requirements, an\nAppendix is the appropriate location for this material. Appendix C provides guidance on\ndetermining if a pipeline could affect an HCA.\nRespondent further argued that it reviewed the regulations and made its best effort to comply using\nCensus Bureau information and data, topographic maps and operator knowledge and experience.\nRespondent repeated its argument that it was not required to use NPMS. Respondent posed that as\na result of the process used, the Census Bureau data shows that the pipeline is not in an HCA and\nonly one segment is in an OPA. The OPA starts at the West Seneca NY terminal and ends at Route\n20A. In support of its position, Respondent submitted its IMP, Exhibit \"A.\" Respondent explained\nthat it was not aware of the NPMS system and due to technical challenges could not have accessed\nthat system. Respondent stated that its pipeline was not even identified in the NPMS. Respondent\nposed that just because OPS would prefer another process-that would include making use of NPMS\nboundaries does not mean Respondent's process was invalid or contrary to law. Respondent\nconcluded that it followed a legitimate lawful process to identify HCAs and should not be held in\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. 5 195.452(0(1).\nIn support of its position, OPS submitted that the regulation defines HCA as a high population area,\nan other populated area, an unusually sensitive area, or a commercially navigable waterway. OPS\nmaps these areas on the NPMS. An operator, members of the public, or other government agency\n\n\n\nmay view and download the data from the NPMS home page. OPS maintains the NPMS and\nupdates it periodically. However, it is an operator's responsibility to ensure that it has identified all\nHCAs that could be affected by a pipeline segment. The Census data used by Respondent showed\nthat the pipeline was not in an HCA, only one area was in an other populated area, and only two\nunusually sensitive areas were identified. In addition, the Census data did not show that the area\nsouth of Route 20A was OPA.\nRespondent is correct and it is true that an operator has the flexibility to identify population HCAs\nwithout the benefit of the NPMS. It is also true that OPS supports the use of Census data. As for\nRespondent's explanation and defense that it was not aware of the NPMS, it is rejected. OPS held\npublic meetings to discuss and educate operators on the types of data to be used. Through a number\nof federal register notices and public meetings, pipeline operators were expected to be aware of\nIntegrity Management regulations in general, and specific HCA locations that could be affected by\ntheir pipelines. The NPMS initially provided pipeline operators with HCA location data, prior to\nany specific pipeline data being added. Subsequently, PHMSA collected and uploaded pipeline data\ninto NPMS.\nAs for Respondent's explanation and defense that its pipeline was not identified in the NPMS, it is\nalso rejected. Operators could use NPMS whether or not their actual pipeline mileage had been\nuploaded. PHMSA established the NPMS for two primary purposes, as a resource to pipeline\noperators for information on the location of HCAs and as a repository of individual and specific\npipeline data. In this case, Respondent had a process that did not include the NPMS boundaries\ninformation, which demonstrates the flexibility allowed for operators to identify HCAs. However,\nRespondent was unsuccessful in making an adequate correlation with the information and processes\nused to properly identify the extent of population-oriented HCAs. It is not a matter of OPS'\npreference for another process but the requirement to identify the pipeline segments \"could affect\"\nHCAs.\nIt is common for a Respondent found in violation of OPS regulations to claim that an OPS\ninterpretation of a regulation is misplaced; or that the agency's interpretation is an attempt to subvert\nthe rulemaking process. The ultimate criterion is the administrative interpretation, which becomes\nof controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. The language\nof the regulatory provision is clear that operators are required to include in their integrity\nmanagement program the identity of pipeline segments that could affect HCAs. At the time of the\nregulations' promulgation and during public meetings, it was clearly stated that it is an operator's\nresponsibility to ensure that it has identified all HCAs that could be affected by a pipeline segment.\nOPS' role is not to direct how an operator interprets data, as long as the data interpreted is safety\nconscious and interpreted in a conservative manner keeping the safety of the public, property and\nthe environment first. The process used by Respondent failed to adequately identify all HCAs that\ncould be affected by a pipeline segment and failed to properly identify the extent of population-\noriented HCAs. Accordingly, I find Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(l).\n\n\n\nItem Id in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. 5 195.452(f)(1) by not properly\nidentifying which pipeline segments could affect HCAs, as a Subject Matter Expert's review of\nRespondent's process for identifying New York drinking water locations revealed no specific access\nto HCA related data, beyond the use of its existing Facility Response Plan data. Although NPMS\ndoes not provide data related to New York drinking water, Respondent could have used alternate\ndata sources to ascertain pipeline proximity to such locations.\nDuring the hearing and in its post-hearing submission, Respondent contended that the regulations\ndo not require that an operator use a specific number of data sources to identify drinking water\nsources. It is left to the operator's discretion to find the most appropriate process and sophisticated\ndata sources are no substitute for old fashion operator knowledge and experience. Respondent\nasserted that it knows the location of drinking water sources in New York because in the early 1990's\nit conducted an extensive, detailed environmental study for a proposed expansion project.\nRespondent further asserted that the OPS inspector did not review or consider Respondent's\nEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) as a \"data source\" during the inspection. In support of its\nposition, Respondent submitted a copy of the table of contents and relevant sections of the ''Draft\nEnvironmental Impact Statement for Proposed Petroleum Pipeline Project Warren Pennsylvania to\nthe Town of Tonawanda, New York.\" Respondent advised that third party consultants reviewed all\navailable data to identify drinking water sources along the entire extent of the pipeline.\nRespondent further advised that its IMP relies, in part, upon the process followed in its Facility\nResponse Plan, which relies upon the environmental assessment for the proposed pipeline project.\nIn support of its position, Respondent again referred to its EIS. Respondent contended that the EIS\nclearly shows a detailed analysis of all water and ecological and environmental impacts along the\npipeline.\nDuring the hearing, OPS acknowledged that it was unaware that Respondent used the 1999 plan and\nthe OPA plan, as it was conducted prior to Integrity Management regulations. An OPS inspector\ntestified that during the inspection Respondent referred only to the conclusions of its established\nFacility Response Plan to identify New York drinking water HCAs. The inspector also testified that\nthe plan shown to him at the time of the inspection did not provide details as to how the conclusions\nwere reached, thereby not substantiating their conclusions. During the hearing, OPS reviewed\nRespondent's EIS and conceded that it revealed a detailed analysis of all ecological and\nenvironmental impacts along the pipeline and does account for New York ecological locations and\ndrinking water and corroborates their identification of ecological and drinking water locations. OPS\nstated that had the EIS been made available during the inspection, OPS would not have alleged a\nprobable violation.\nBased upon this information, this allegation of violation is withdrawn.\nItem l e in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. 5 195.452(0(1) by not properly\nidentifying which pipeline segments could affect a High Consequence Areas, as Respondent\nperformed no specific review of Pennsylvania's ecological locations. Although NPMS does not\n\n\n\nprovide data related to Pennsylvania's ecological locations, Respondent could have used alternate\ndata sources to ascertain the pipeline's proximity to such locations. While Respondent asserted that\na review was conducted, it failed to substantiate that claim during the inspection, beyond its existing\nFacility Response Plan.\nDuring the hearing, Respondent's argued that ecological resource is not mentioned in the regulations,\nconfirming no violation of federal pipeline safety regulations occurred. Respondent was directed\nto 49 C.F.R. § 195.450, Definitions, which apply to 49 C.F.R. 195.452 and where High\nConsequence Areas are defined. High Consequence Areas include \"Unusually Sensitive Areas\n(USAs). USAs are defined under 195.2 as \"a drinking water or ecological resource area that is\nunusually sensitive to environmental damage from a hazardous liquid pipeline release, as identified\nunder § 195.6.\"\nRespondent then advised that its EIS Report, which was conducted prior to Integrity Management\nregulations, demonstrates that it performed a review. In support of its position, Respondent\nsubmitted the EIS.\nDuring the inspection Respondent referred only to the conclusions of its established Facility\nResponse Plan to identify Pennsylvania ecological HCAs. At the time of the inspection, the plan\nshown to the OPS inspector did not provide details as to how the conclusions were reached, thereby\nnot substantiating their conclusions. At the time of the inspection, the plan shown to the OPS\ninspector did not provide details as to how the conclusions were reached, thereby not substantiating\ntheir conclusions. However, after a review of Respondent's EIS, I concur with OPS' conclusion that\nit revealed a detailed analysis of all ecological and environmental impacts along the pipeline and\ndoes account for Pennsylvania ecological locations and corroborates its identification of ecological\nlocations.\nBased upon this information, this allegation of violation is withdrawn.\nItem 2 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. 195.452(b) when it did not\ninclude in its IMP the identity of pipeline segments that could affect HCAs prior to the regulatory\ndeadline. Respondent did not include in its IMP the identity of HCAs on its Category 2 pipeline by\nNovember 18,2002. Respondent's IMP lacked information, as the area south of Rt. 20A was not\nproperly evaluated.\nRespondent took the position that this allegation of violation is the same as Item l a and repeated its\nargument that it was not required to use NPMS, that the regulations do not mention NPMS, and do\nnot specifically direct that NPMS must be used to determine the location and extent of HCAs.\nRespondent also argued that there is no support for requiring the use of NPMS boundaries to\ndetermine HCAs. Respondent contended that it properly identified HCAs prior to November 18,\n2002 and that there is no violation. In support of its position, Respondent again referred to its EIS.\nRespondent contended that the EIS clearly shows a detailed analysis of all water and ecological and\nenvironmental impacts along the pipeline.\n\n\n\nOPS repeated its testimony that, during the inspection, Respondent referred only to the conclusions\nof their established Facility Response Plan, without further substantiation of processes used to\nidentify drinking water and ecological resources. OPS also testified that although the EIS addresses\nwater and ecological resources, it does not account for population.\nA determination is made that Respondent is correct that it accounted for water and ecological\nresources no later than November 18,2002. However, Respondent failed to adequately account for\nthe population. The extended population HCAs at the beginning of the pipeline (Buffalo, NY) and\nend of the pipeline (Warren, PA) were not included in Respondent's tabulation of HCAs and its IMP\nalso lacked information on the area south of Rt. 20A, leaving these population HCAs unaddressed.\nRespondent's IMP program referred to its Facility Response Plan. However, its Facility Response\nPlan also failed to provide sufficient details as to how its conclusions were reached. Respondent\nfailed to substantiate its conclusions. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(b).\nItem 3 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(d) by not completing its\nbaseline assessment by the regulatory deadline, as Respondent did not have 50% of its HCA baseline\nassessment completed on its Category 2 pipeline by August 16,2005. The line was partially assessed\nfor metal loss with a MFL Tool in 2001. Milepoles 0.0 - 1.7 and 76.0 - 78.5 were not assessed for\nmetal loss. Portions of this mileage can affect HCAs. Respondent's Category 2 pipeline was not\nadequately assessed for deformation.\nRespondent argued that the allegation of violation called into question whether the 2001 pig run\nqualifies as 50% of the HCA baseline and whether it was necessary to include the very beginning\nand very end of the pipeline in the baseline. Respondent also posed that the regulations allow for\nthe use of a prior assessment to meet the baseline requirement if the assessment would otherwise\nmeet the IMP requirements, 49 C.F.R. 5 195.450(d)(2). One of those requirements is to be able to\ndetect a dent with a depth greater than 2% of the pipeline's diameter, 49 C.F.R. 5 195.452(h).\nRespondent submitted Exhibit C, a specification from H. Rosen USA, Inc., in support of its position.\nThe specification states that ID Anomalies are detectable and that ID Anomalies include dents,\nbuckles and wrinkles. Respondent advised that it decided to use its 200 1 prior assessment to meet\nthe baseline requirement because 95% of the pipeline was covered and it believed that the regulatory\ncriteria had been met.\nRespondent further advised that the very beginning and very end of the pipeline was not assessed\nbecause those segments cannot accept the assessment tool or \"pig.\" Based upon its HCA\nclassification, Respondent determined that it was not necessary to assess the very beginning and very\nend of the pipeline because neither segment impacts HCAs. Nevertheless, Respondent advised that\nit cannot prove that the 2001 pig run detected dents at 2% of pipeline diameter. Respondent\nsuggested that OPS review the Rosen report to determine whether it meets the requirements for\ndeformation.\n\n\n\nAfter further consideration, OPS agreed that most of the pipeline was assessed for metal loss with\nthe 2001 ILI. Nevertheless, OPS advised that 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(c)(i)(A) requires that if the\noperator chooses to assess the pipeline with an ILI, then the process must be capable of detecting\ncorrosion and deformation. While the ILI vendor proposed to run an electronic geometry pig (EPG)\nthat could have adequately detected deformation, the EPG was not performed. A review of\nRespondent's Exhibit C, page 7, a specification from H. Rosen USA, Inc., Section 2.2 states EGP\n\"Not Applicable.\" OPS tesified that an adequate deformation assessment was not conducted. OPS\npointed out that the ILI corrosion report mentioned possible ID anomaly (PIDA). Although the ILI\ntool can somewhat detect the presence of deformation, it cannot determine the size of the\ndeformation, as required by 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(ii) and (iii).\nAn operator cannot perform an adequate assessment for deformation(dents) without being able to\nsize possible dents. Although running a gauging plate through the pipe in advance of the corrosion\nILI would detect large deformations that might impede movement or damage the corrosion ILI tool,\nsuch a gauging plate is only valid for gross deformations and would not detect 2% and 3%\ndeformations as required by the regulations. Respondent's Category 2 pipeline was not adequately\nassessed for deformation. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. 195.452(d) by\nfailing to complete its baseline assessment by August 16,2005.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nThe Notice proposed a $50,00 civil penalty for violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195. Under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $1 00,000 per violation for each day\nof the violation up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of violations.\n49 U.S.C. 60122 and 49 C.F.R. 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, degree\nof Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to pay the\npenalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on Respondent's\nability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe proposed penalty for Item l a ofthe Notice is $1 0,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. 195.452(0(1).\nRespondent failed to specifically use the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) population data\nboundaries to properly identify the extent of population-oriented High Consequence Areas (HCAs).\nRespondent argued that if the regulations do not mention NPMS and do not require the use of NPMS\nboundaries then Respondent could not have violated the law and is not subject to civil penalties.\nPHMSA established the NPMS for two primary purposes, as a resource to pipeline operators for\ninformation on the location of HCAs and as a repository of individual and specific pipeline data.\nThrough a number of federal register notices and public meetings, pipeline operators were expected\nto be aware of Integrity Management regulations in general, and specific HCA locations that could\nbe affected by their pipelines. Operators are not necessarily required to use NPMS to find those\nHCAs that they could affect, but regulations require operators to account for those HCAs included\nin the NPMS. (49 C.F.R. Part 195, Appendix C, IA) An operator may choose to establish an IMP\n\n\n\nwithout the use of NPMS, but PHMSA uses lVPMS to validate the thoroughness of a pipeline\noperator's program. Operators could use NPMS whether or not their actual pipeline's mileage had\nbeen uploaded. The process used by Respondent failed to adequately identify all HCAs that could\nbe affected by a pipeline segment and failed to properly identify the extent of population-oriented\nHCAs. Respondent has not provided any evidence that would justify mitigation of the penalty.\nFailure to correctly determine the presence and expanse of HCAs along the pipeline increases the\nrisk of potential harm to the public and the environment. Accordingly, having reviewed the record\nand considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $10,000.\nThe proposed penalty for Item Id of the Notice is $10,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. 9\n195.452(0(1), as Respondent failed to properly identify which pipeline segments could affect HCAs,\nas Respondent's process for identifying New York drinking water locations revealed no specific\naccess to HCA related data, beyond the use of its existing facility response plan data. Based upon\na demonstration of compliance at the hearing, this allegation of violation was withdrawn.\nAccordingly, the related proposed civil penalty is withdrawn.\nThe proposed penalty for Item l e ofthe Notice is $1 0,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. 9 195.452(0(1),\nas Respondent failed to properly identify which pipeline segments could affect a High Consequence\nAreas. Respondent performed no specific review of Pennsylvania's ecological locations. Based\nupon a demonstration of compliance at the hearing, this allegation of violation was withdrawn.\nAccordingly, the related proposed civil penalty is withdrawn.\nThe proposed penalty for Item 2 is $1 0,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. 195.452(b), as Respondent\nfailed to include in its Integrity Management Program the identity of pipeline segments that could\naffect a High Consequence Areas prior to the regulatory deadline. Respondent did not include in its\nIMP the identity of HCAs on its Category 2 pipeline by November 18,2002. Respondent's program\nlacked information as the area south of Rt. 20A was not properly evaluated.\nRespondent contended that it properly identified HCAs prior to November 18,2002. In support of\nits position, Respondent again referred to its EIS. Respondent contended that the EIS clearly shows\na detailed analysis of all water and ecological and environmental impacts along the pipeline.\nRespondent is correct that it accounted for water and ecological resources no later than November\n18, 2002. However, Respondent failed to adequately account for the population. The extended\npopulation HCAs at the beginning of the pipeline (Buffalo, NY) and end of the pipeline (Warren,\nPA) were not included in Respondent's tabulation of HCAs and its program also lacked information\non the area south of Rt. 20A, leaving these population HCAs unaddressed. Respondent's Facility\nResponse Plan also failed to provide sufficient details as to how its conclusions were reached and\nfailed to substantiate those conclusions. Based on Respondent's demonstration that it accounted for\nwater and ecological resources no later than November 18, 2002, the civil penalty is reduced\nproportionately. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria,\nI assess Respondent a civil penalty of $3,000 for failure to adequately account for the HCA\npopulation at the beginning of the pipeline and at end of the pipeline and its failure to include\nsufficient information on the area south of Rt. 20A.\n\n\n\nThe proposed penalty for Item 3 of the Notice is $10,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. 5 195.452(d),\nas Respondent failed to complete its baseline assessment by the regulatory deadline, as Respondent\ndid not have 50% of its HCA baseline assessment completed on it Category 2 pipeline by August\n16,2005. The line was partially assessed for metal loss with a MFL Tool in 2001. Milepoles 0.0 -\n1.7 and 76.0 - 78.5 were not assessed for metal loss. Portions of this mileage can affect HCAs.\nRespondent's Category, 2 pipeline was not adequately assessed for deformation.\nThe Respondent advised that its 200 1 pig run qualifies as 50% of the HCA baseline. Respondent\nfkrther advised that the very beginning and very end of the pipeline was not assessed because those\nsegments cannot accept the assessment tool or \"pig.\" Respondent also posed that the regulations\nallow for the use of a prior assessment to meet the baseline requirement if the assessment would\notherwise meet the integrity management program requirements, 49 C.F.R. 5 195.450(d)(2).\nThe ILI vendor proposed to run an electronic geometry pig (EPG) that could have adequately\ndetected deformation, the ILI was not performed. A review of Respondent's Exhibit C, page 7, a\nspecification from H. Rosen USA, Inc., Section 2.2 states EGP \"Not Applicable.\" Accordingly,\nhaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil\npenalty of $10,000.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent\na total civil penalty of $23,000. A determination has been made that Respondent has the ability to\npay this penalty without adversely affecting its ability to continue business.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. 5 89.2 1 (b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal Reserve\nCommunications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are\ncontained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial\nOperations Division (AMZ-300), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical\nCenter, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73 125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $23,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in\naccordance with 3 1 U.S.C. 5 371 7,3 1 C.F.R. 5 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. 5 89.23. Pursuant to those same\nauthorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not\nmade within 1 10 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral\nof the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United States District Court.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items la, lb, lc, Id, le, 2 and 3 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. $195.452. Items Id and l e were withdrawn.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. 5 60 1 18(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or\nwho owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards\n\n\n\nestablished under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5 601 18(b) and 49 C.F.R.\n5 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the\npipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations. Respondent must -\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5 . 6. 7. 8. 7. With respect to Item l a and l b of the Notice, use NPMS population data boundaries to\nidentifl the beginning and end points of HCAs and OPAs over the entire pipeline, as required\nby 49 C.F.R. 5 195.452(0(1). Also, reform the integrity management program to specifically\nuse NPMS population boundaries and incorporate the results into the integrity management\nprogram.\nWith respect to Item l c of the Notice, reform the integrity management program to include\nan HCA review of mile poles 0.0 and 1.7 and mile poles 76.0 - 78.5, then include this\nmileage in the integrity management program for portions of such mileage that could affect\nHCAs.\nWith respect to Item 2 of the Notice, include in your program the identification of each\npipeline or pipeline segment specifically correlated to HCA data.\nWith respect to Item 3 of the Notice, complete a thorough baseline assessment, including\nmetal loss and deformation, on at least 50% of the pipeline system that has been determined\nto have a \"could affect\" on HCAs with prioritization of the work on higher risk HCA areas.\nAll of the compliance items detailed above must be completed prior to February 28,2007.\nAll documentation and/or evidence of completion of these actions must reference the above\nItem number to which the documentation and/or evidence applies.\nAll documentation and/or evidence of completion of these actions must be combined in one\npackage and sent at the same time. Do not send individual documents, even if some are\ncompleted before others.\nSubmit four (4) copies of all documentation and/or evidence to demonstrate completion of\neach item detailed above to the Director, OPS, Eastern Region, 409 3rd Street, SW, Suite 300,\nWashington, D.C. 20024.\nThe Director, OPS, Eastern Region may grant an extension of time for compliance with any\nof the terms of this order for good cause. A request for an extension must be in writing.\nFailure to comply with this Final Order may result in the assessment of civil penalties of up to\n$100,000 per violation per day, or in the referral of the case for judicial enforcement.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. 5 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this\nFinal Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this Final\n\n\n\nOrder and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition automatically\nstays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. All other terms of the order, including any required\ncorrective action, remain in full effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt.\n,\nOCT 1 3 2006\nDate Issued","truncated":false,"body_characters":34217}