{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120125004W","title":"PORTLAND PIPE LINE CORPORATION — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-02-10","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 195.440(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120125004w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120125004w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120125004w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120125004W","body":"Warning Letter involving PORTLAND PIPE LINE CORPORATION. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.440(a). The case was opened on 2012-02-10 and is reported as closed as of 2012-02-10. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120125004W_Warning Letter_02102012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120125004W/120125004W_Warning%20Letter_02102012_text.pdf\n\n120125004W_Warning Letter_02102012_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103\nOf Transportation West Trenton, NJ 08628\nPipeline and 609.989.2171\nHazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nWARNING LETTER\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS MAIL\nFebruary 10, 2012\nLarry D. Wilson\nPresident\nPortland Pipeline Corporation\n30 Hill Street\nSouth Portland, ME 04106\nCPF 1-2012-5004W\nDear Mr. Wilson:\nFrom October 4 to 6, 2011, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected Portland Pipeline Corporation’s\n(Portland) Public Awareness Program in South Portland, Maine.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed a probable violation of the Pipeline Safety\nRegulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The item inspected and the probable violation is:\n1. 195.440 Public Awareness\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API)\nRecommended Practice (RP) 1162 (IBR, see § 195.3).\nPortland’s written continuing public education program, PMPL Public Awareness Program, did not follow\nall of the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162\n(IBR, see § 195.3).\nA. First, PMPL Public Awareness Program did not address API RP 1162,\n“Section 4 Message Content”\n.\nThere was no documented process for providing programs in both English and in other languages\ncommonly used by significant concentration of non-English speaking population along the pipeline.\nThis procedure should include, but is not limited to, information on what data will be evaluated to make\nthe determination, the frequency of evaluation, and defining what the operator deems “significant\nnumber and concentration”.\nDuring the inspection, a Portland representative provided records that demonstrated they have considered\nand looked at the populations of non-English speaking along the Portland pipeline. Portland has\n\n\n\n1-2012-5004W\nreviewed census data by state, as well as the results of the API PAPERS Survey results for the Portland\nPipeline and has records to demonstrate that they have examined this. However, Portland did not include\nthis process in the PMPL Public Awareness Program.\nB. Second, the PMPL Public Awareness Program did not address API RP 1162,\n“Section 4 Message\nContent: Section 4.3.4 Liaison with Emergency Officials”\n. The PMPL Public Awareness Program did\nnot describe the process used for relaying information to stakeholders on Portland’s ongoing relationship\nwith local emergency response officials to help prevent instance and assure preparedness for\nemergencies.\nAgain, a Portland representative provided records that demonstrated that Portland was working and\ncoordinating with emergency response officials, but Portland has not made stakeholders aware of the\nrelationship that they have with emergency response officials.\nC. Third, the PMPL Public Awareness Program did not address API RP 1162,\n“Section 4 Message Content:\nSection 4.6 Pipeline Location Information” in its entirety. The PMPL Public Awareness Program did not\ninclude information on the availability of the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) in their public\nawareness materials sent to stakeholders. In addition, it was noted during the inspection that material\nprovided to stakeholders illustrating pipeline markers were generic and not specific to Portland’s\nmarkers.\nD. Fourth, the PMPL Public Awareness Program did not address API RP 1162,\n“Section 4 Message\nContent: Section 4.11 Security”\n. The PMPL Public Awareness Program did not have an overview\npertaining to security of their pipelines and related facilities. There was no evidence that security was\naddressed in the Portland program or contained in the materials provided to stakeholders.\nPortland, however, did have documentation that showed that the information on security was going to be\nadded to the new calendars that would be distributed and a Portland representative stated that this\ninformation would also be added to new brochures sent to stakeholders in 2011.\nE. Finally, the PMPL Public Awareness Program did not address API RP 1162,\n“Section 4 Message\nContent: Section 4.12 Facility Purpose”\n. The PMPL Public Awareness Program did not include an\nunderstanding of, or evidence of considering the inclusion of information on the nature of facilities or the\ngeneral information regarding the facility and product stored or transported through the facility to all the\nstakeholders.\nFor example, Portland has pump station facilities. Portland did not include consideration of these\nfacilities in its PMPL Public Awareness Program. Another example, the information in the brochures\nthat Portland mails to all affected and government or safety officials does not specify that the pipeline\ncarries crude oil. In that brochure it states “how to recognize a pipeline leak” to look “for a dense white\ncloud or fog” or “dirt being blown into the air”. These are not typically how one would recognize a\ncrude oil pipeline leak.\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 for each\nviolation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of\nviolations. We have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case, and have\ndecided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We\nadvise you to correct the item(s) identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in Portland Pipeline\nCorporation being subject to additional enforcement action.\n120125004W_Warning Letter_02102012 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n1-2012-5004W\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer to CPF\n1-2012-5004W. Please send all correspondence in this matter to Byron Coy, PE, Director, PHMSA\nEastern Region, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103, W. Trenton, NJ 08628. Be advised that all\nmaterial you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If\nyou believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C.\n552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the\nportions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the\nredacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nSincerely,\nByron Coy, PE\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n120125004W_Warning Letter_02102012 Page 3 of 3","truncated":false,"body_characters":7223}