{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220126008","title":"TAMPA BAY PIPELINE CO. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-05-09","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(c)(1)(i)(c), 195.452(c)(1)(i)(d), 195.452(d)(1), 195.452(k), 195.452(l)(1)(ii).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220126008.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220126008.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220126008","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220126008","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TAMPA BAY PIPELINE CO.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(c)(1)(i)(c),  195.452(c)(1)(i)(d),  195.452(d)(1),  195.452(k),  195.452(l)(1)(ii). The case was opened on 2012-05-09 and is reported as closed as of 2014-09-16. Proposed civil penalty: $66,100. Assessed civil penalty: $66,100. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220126008_closure letter_09162014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220126008/220126008_closure%20letter_09162014.pdf\n\n220126008_closure Letter_09162014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220126008/220126008_closure%20Letter_09162014_text.pdf\n\n220126008_Final Order_09142012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220126008/220126008_Final%20Order_09142012.pdf\n\n220126008_Final Order_09142012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220126008/220126008_Final%20Order_09142012_text.pdf\n\n220126008_NOPV PCP PCO_05092012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220126008/220126008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05092012.pdf\n\n220126008_NOPV PCP PCO_05092012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220126008/220126008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05092012_text.pdf\n\n220126008_closure Letter_09162014_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nSeptember 16, 2014\nMr. Robert L. Rose\nPresident\nTampa Bay Pipeline Company\nP.O. Box 35236\nSarasota, FL 34242\nCPF 2-2012-6008\nDear Mr. Rose:\nOn September 14, 2012, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) issued Tampa Bay Pipeline Company (TBPL) a\nFinal Order with an attached Compliance Order in the above-referenced case. The\nCompliance Order required TBPL to undertake certain actions to ensure compliance with the\nfederal pipeline safety regulations.\nSubsequent to the Final Order, TBPL took certain actions to comply with the requirements in\nthe Compliance Order and provided the OPS Southern Region with documentation of those\nactions. Based on our review of the actions taken by TBPL and the supporting\ndocumentation, we have determined that TBPL has completed its actions with regards to the\nCompliance Order and the Final Order. This case is now closed and no further action is\nnecessary with respect to the matters involved in this case.\nPlease be advised that this letter refers only to the above referenced order (CPF 2-2012-6008)\nand not to any other PHMSA cases, if any.\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\n\n220126008_NOPV PCP PCO_05092012_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMay 9, 2012\nMr. Robert L. Rose\nPresident\nTampa Bay Pipeline Company\nP.O. Box 35236\nSarasota, FL 34242\nCPF 2-2012-6008\nDear Mr. Rose:\nFrom September 12-16, 2011, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Southern Region, inspected the Tampa Bay Pipeline Company\n(TBPL) Pipeline Integrity Management Plan (IMP) in Tampa, Florida, pursuant to Chapter\n601 of 49 United States Code.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that TBPL has committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations codified in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The items\ninspected and the probable violations are as follows:\n1. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n.... (c) What must be in the baseline assessment plan?\n(1) An operator must include each of the following elements in its written baseline\nassessment plan:\n(i) The methods selected to assess the integrity of the line pipe. An operator must\nassess the integrity of the line pipe by any of the following methods. The methods an\noperator selects to assess low frequency electric resistance welded pipe or lap welded\npipe susceptible to longitudinal seam failure must be capable of assessing seam\nintegrity and of detecting corrosion and deformation anomalies.\n.... (C) Other technology that the operator demonstrates can provide an equivalent\nunderstanding of the condition of the line pipe. An operator choosing this option\nmust notify the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) 90 days before conducting the\n\n\n\nassessment, by sending a notice to the address or facsimile number specified in\nparagraph (m) of this section.1\nTBPL did not properly perform the integrity assessment of its line pipe using External\nCorrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA), the pipeline integrity assessment method TBPL\nselected for its baseline assessment plan. That is, because TBPL did not account for all\nabove ground pipe and all pipe in vaults, it did not properly perform the ECDA\nPre- Assessment Step, which included the\n(1) ECDA Feasibility Assessment,\n(2) Selection of Indirect Inspection Tools, and\n(3) Identification of ECDA Regions.\nIn a letter dated July 20, 2005, TBPL notified the PHMSA Southern Region Director that\nit would use ECDA to complete its pipeline integrity assessment in accordance with\nparagraph §195.452(c)(1)(i)(C). Prior to November 25, 2005, ECDA was considered\n“other technology,” which required a pipeline operator to give the Office of Pipeline\nSafety (OPS) [i.e. PHMSA] 90 days notice before conducting the assessment. In its\nnotification letter, TBPL stated that its “assessment technology as a minimum follows\nASME B31.8S Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines and the NACE RP 0502,\nstandard Recommended Practices for External Corrosion Direct Assessment.” The\nNACE 0502 edition in place at that time was the 2002 edition, which was not incorporated\nby reference into the federal pipeline safety regulations in Part 195 at that time.\nNotwithstanding TBPL’s statements in its July 20, 2005, letter, TBPL had above ground\npipe and pipe in vaults, which were not properly addressed in the ECDA Pre-Assessment\nStep completed before November 25, 2005, in accordance with NACE 0502 as follows:\n(1) ECDA Feasibility Assessment: NACE RP0502-2002 sub-section 3.3.1 required\nthe operator to determine whether there were conditions where indirect inspection\ntools could not be used and sub-section 3.3.2 allowed the operator to use ECDA if the\noperator used other methods of assessing the integrity of the line pipe. Indirect\ninspection tools cannot assess above ground pipe or pipe in vaults.\n(2) Selection of Indirect Inspection Tools: NACE RP0502-2002 sub-section 3.4.1\nrequired the operator to select at least two indirect inspection tools for all locations\nwhere ECDA was applied, based on the ability of the tools to assess the pipe\nconditions, while allowing the substitution of 100% direct examination. Indirect\ninspection tools cannot assess above ground pipe or pipe in vaults.\n(3) Identification of ECDA Regions: NACE RP0502-2002 sub-section 3.5.1 required\nthe operator to identify ECDA regions based on having similar physical characteristics\nand using the same indirect inspection tools. In performing the ECDA Pre-Assessment\nTBPL determined that ECDA was feasible using two indirect inspection tools over the\npipeline segments, except for pipe in casings which were included in separate ECDA\nregions. TBPL did not identify the above ground pipe and pipe in vaults as locations\nwhere ECDA indirect inspection tools could not be applied. These locations should\nhave been identified as separate ECDA regions.\n1 §195.452(c)(1)(i)(C) as stated above reflects the code language in place prior to November 25, 2005, at the time TBPL\nundertook its baseline assessment using ECDA. The code has been amended several times since then. ECDA was\nconsidered “Other Technology” prior to November 25, 2005.\nPage 2 of 8\n\n\n\n2. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n.... (c) What must be in the baseline assessment plan?\n(1) An operator must include each of the following elements in its written baseline\nassessment plan:\n(i) The methods selected to assess the integrity of the line pipe. An operator must\nassess the integrity of the line pipe by any of the following methods. The methods an\noperator selects to assess low frequency electric resistance welded pipe or lap welded\npipe susceptible to longitudinal seam failure must be capable of assessing seam\nintegrity and of detecting corrosion and deformation anomalies.\n.... (D) Other technology that the operator demonstrates can provide an equivalent\nunderstanding of the condition of the line pipe. An operator choosing this option\nmust notify the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) 90 days before conducting the\nassessment, by sending a notice to the address or facsimile number specified in\nparagraph (m) of this section.2\nTBPL did not properly perform the integrity assessment of line pipe in casings using\nGuided Wave Ultrasonic Testing (GWUT), the pipeline integrity assessment method\nTBPL selected for pipe in casings. Specifically, TBPL did not assess all of its line pipe in\nseveral casings assessed with GWUT because the inspection range of the GWUT was less\nthan the total length of the pipe in the casings.\nTBPL’s IMP Section 6.0 Direct Assessment Plan required multiple GWUT “shots” if the\ninspection range was less than the total length of the pipe inside the casing. For the\ncasings listed below, the GWUT inspection range was less than the total length of the pipe\ninside the casings but TBPL completed only one GWUT “shot” which resulted in pipe\nwithin the casing not being assessed by the GWUT.\nCasing Location Length of Pipe\nin Casing\nGWUT\nInspection Range\n2-5 South side of 22nd St - ½ mile W.\nSagasta 40-feet 36-feet\n6-10 Keysville Rd @ CR 640 68-feet 53-feet\n6-11 Bypass across CR 640 @ County Line\nRd 72-feet 42-feet\n7-20 Retaining Pond on Fishhawk Blvd 1st\ncasing W of CR 640 50-feet 27-feet\n9-2 Nichols Rd & Anderson Rd 65-feet 43-feet\n3. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n.... (d) When must operators complete baseline assessments? Operators must complete\nbaseline assessments as follows:\n(1) Time periods. Complete assessments before the following deadlines:\nIf the\npipeline is:\nThen complete baseline assessments not\nlater than the following date according to\na schedule that prioritizes assessments:\nAnd assess at least 50 percent of the line\npipe on an expedited basis. Beginning\nwith the highest risk pipe, not later than:\n2 §195.452(c)(1)(i)(D) as stated here reflects the code language in place after November 25, 2005, during which\ntime TBPL undertook casing assessments using GWUT.\nPage 3 of 8\n\n\n\nIf the\npipeline is:\nThen complete baseline assessments not\nlater than the following date according to\na schedule that prioritizes assessments:\nAnd assess at least 50 percent of the line\npipe on an expedited basis. Beginning\nwith the highest risk pipe, not later than:\nCategory 1 Category 2 Category 3 March 31, 2008 February 17, 2009 Date the pipeline begins operation September 30, 2004\nAugust 16, 2005\nNot applicable\nTBPL failed to complete the baseline assessments before the required deadline. That is,\nfailed to complete the baseline assessment of all line pipe in HCAs by February 17, 2009.\nTBPL is a Category 2 pipeline per §195.452(a). The regulations required operators of\nCategory 2 pipelines to complete the baseline assessment of all line pipe in HCAs not later\nthan February 17, 2009. It should be noted that TBPL classified all its pipeline segments\nas HCAs in August 2005 as stated in Section 4.0 of its IMP dated October 2005.\nTBPL did not complete the entire baseline assessment of all of its line pipe within HCAs\nby the required deadline; i.e. February 17, 2009. While TBPL used ECDA, GWUT, and\npressure testing to assess its line pipe in HCAs, it did not assess all of the line pipe in\nHCAs because it did not assess all of the line pipe in vaults, all above ground line pipe,\nand all line pipe in casings.\nPrior to February 17, 2009, TBPL assessed the line pipe in some of its casings by GWUT.\nHowever, it did not fully assess the line pipe in casings labeled 2-5, 6-10, 6-11, 7-20, and\n9-2. That is, due to the limitations of GWUT the entire length of the pipes within the\ncasings was not assessed. The GWUT tool was run from only one end of the casings,\nwhich resulted in only a partial assessment of the pipe in the casings.\nAfter the February 17, 2009 deadline, TBPL continued to assess the pipe in casings that\nhad not been assessed by either pressure testing or GWUT by using procedures based on\nPHMSA’s March 1, 2010 “Guidelines for Integrity Assessment of Cased Pipe Using\nECDA.” TBPL used this process in CY 2010 and CY 2011 to assess line pipe in casings\nlabeled 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 3-1, 3-2, 3-4. 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 6-1, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, 6-12,\n6-13, 6-15, 6-16, 6-17, 7-1, 7-27-4, 7-6, 7-10, 7-11, 7-13, 7-28, and 11-2. At the time of\nthe PHMSA inspection, the casings inspected in CY 2010 and 2011 did not include the\nfive casings previously inspected by GWUT, which were incomplete because all the pipe\nin the casings was not assessed. Additionally, TBPL did not properly follow its\nprocedures to identify and assess line pipe in vaults and above ground line pipe.\n4. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n.... (k) What methods to measure program effectiveness must be used?\nAn operator's program must include methods to measure whether the program is\neffective in assessing and evaluating the integrity of each pipeline segment and in\nprotecting the high consequence areas. See Appendix C of this part for guidance on\nmethods that can be used to evaluate a program's effectiveness.\nTBPL’s IMP did not include appropriate methods to measure whether the program was\neffective in assessing and evaluating the integrity of each pipeline segment and in\nprotecting high consequence areas; and, TBPL failed to perform annual IMP effectiveness\nreviews in 2008, 2009, and 2010 as required by its written IMP procedures.\nPage 4 of 8\n\n\n\nPHMSA regulations require TBPL to have methods to measure the effectiveness of its\nIMP in assessing and evaluating the integrity of each pipeline segment and in protecting\nhigh consequence areas. TBPL’s IMP Section 12.0 Program Evaluation did not include\nappropriate methods to accomplish this task. Instead, it restated the guidance from\nPHMSA Protocol # 8.01 Program Evaluation: Process Approach, Protocol # 8.02\nProgram Evaluation: Performance Measures, and Protocol # 8.03 Program Evaluation:\nCommunication of Evaluation Results; and, it required TBPL to complete an annual IMP\nevaluation using an outside consultant “\n... to adequately assess the integrity of the\npipeline segments.” That is not the intent of the code, which is to evaluate the\neffectiveness of the program in assessing and evaluating the integrity of each pipeline\nsegment and in protecting high consequence areas. The IMP itself is what assesses and\nevaluates the integrity of each pipeline segment.\nAlso, TBPL’s IMP Section 12.0 Program Evaluation stated that an audit was conducted\non June 12 and 13, 2007, but there were no records or other evidence to show that a\nprogram effectiveness evaluation had been completed in subsequent years.\n5. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n.... (l) What records must be kept?\n(1) An operator must maintain for review during an inspection:\n.... (ii) Documents to support the decisions and analyses, including any modifications,\njustifications, variances, deviations and determinations made, and actions taken, to\nimplement and evaluate each element of the integrity management program listed in\nparagraph (f) of this section.\nTBPL did not properly document the decisions, analyses, and actions taken to implement\nand evaluate each element of its IMP. Specifically, TBPL failed to adequately document\nthe analyses and decisions in the evaluations of: 1) TBPL’s leak detection capability, 2) if\nEmergency Flow Restricting Devices (EFRD) were needed on a pipeline segment to\nprotect an HCA in the event of a hazardous liquid pipeline release, and 3) the selection of\nindirect inspection tools.\nTBPL’s IMP Section 10 states that TBPL conducted evaluations of its leak detection\nsystem and if EFRDs were needed on a pipeline segment, then briefly described what\nTBPL accomplished but the records were not adequate. But, the evaluation\ndocumentation did not reflect the analyses, decisions, and actions of TBPL in conducting\nthe evaluations and acting on the decisions as were discussed with TBPL personnel during\nthe inspection.\nAlso, TBPL did not properly document the decisions, analyses, and actions taken to\nimplement and evaluate each element of the integrity management program. Specifically,\nTBPL failed to adequately document analyses and decisions in the selection of indirect\ninspection tools during the ECDA Pre-Assessment. TBPL documented the selected\nindirect inspection tools for each ECDA segment on a Form D; Indirect Inspection Tool\nSelection. The form for each ECDA segment identifies the indirect inspection tools\nselected, but the analyses and decision basis is not documented.\nPage 5 of 8\n\n\n\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of\n$1,000,000 for any related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the\ncircumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violations and\nhas recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $66,100 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $18,700\n2 $18,700\n3 $28,700\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to\nTampa Bay Pipeline Co. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed\nand made a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline\nOperators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response\noptions. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is\nsubject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive\nmaterial qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete\noriginal document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you\nbelieve 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). If you do not\nrespond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to\ncontest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline\nSafety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final\nOrder.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 2-2012-6008 and for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\nPage 6 of 8\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to the Tampa Bay Pipeline Company (TBPL) a\nCompliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the\ncompliance of Tampa Bay Pipeline Company.\n1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to the failure of TBPL to properly\naccount for its above ground pipe and pipe in vaults during the External Corrosion\nDirect Assessment (ECDA), TBPL must perform the appropriate ECDA steps per its\nprocedures to identify the pipe and assign it to appropriate ECDA Region(s).\n2. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to the failure of TBPL to assess\nall the line pipe in casings 2-5, 6-10, 6-11, 7-20, and 9-2, TBPL must assess all the\nline pipe in the casings.\n3. In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to the failure of TBPL to assess\n100% of its line pipe in High Consequence Areas (HCA) by the required deadline,\nTBPL must identify and assess all the line pipe in HCAs not previously assessed that\nwas required to have been assessed by February 17, 2009.\n4. In regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to the failure of TBPL to include\nappropriate methods to measure whether its Integrity Management Program was\neffective in assessing and evaluating the integrity of each pipeline segment and in\nprotecting high consequence areas and perform the review, TBPL must develop\nappropriate measures to evaluate the effectiveness of its Integrity Management\nProgram and perform the effectiveness review. The effectiveness review must be\nperformed by an independent third party, qualified by education and experience, in\nintegrity management and ECDA.\n5. In regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to the failure of TBPL to\nadequately document the analyses and decisions in the evaluations of: 1) TBPL’s leak\ndetection capability, and 2) if Emergency Flow Restricting Devices (EFRD) are\nneeded on a pipeline segment to protect an HCA in the event of a hazardous liquid\npipeline release, TBPL must prepare adequate documentation of the analyses and\ndecisions in TBPLs’ evaluations of: 1) TBPL’s leak detection capability, and 2) if\nEmergency Flow Restricting Devices (EFRD) are needed on a pipeline segment to\nprotect an HCA in the event of a hazardous liquid pipeline release.\n6. In regards to Compliance Order Items 1 & 5, TBPL must complete these items within\n30 days following receipt of the Final Order and must provide to the Director, Office\nof Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Southern Region, within 45 days following receipt of the\nFinal Order, written documentation confirming the items have been completed.\n7. In regards to Compliance Order Items 2, 3 & 4, TBPL should complete these items\nwithin 30 days following receipt of the Final Order and provide to the Director, Office\nof Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Southern Region, within 45 days following receipt of the\nFinal Order, written documentation confirming the items have been completed.\nOr,\nPage 7 of 8\n\n\n\nIn regards to Compliance Order Items 2, 3 & 4, if TBPL is unable to complete these\nitems within 30 days following receipt of the Final Order then\na. Within 30 days following receipt of the Final Order, TBPL must provide the\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Southern Region a written, fact\nbased, explanation as to why these items could not be completed within 30 days.\nb. Within 30 days following receipt of the Final Order, TBPL must provide the\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Southern Region a written plan to\naccomplish Compliance Order Items 2, 3 & 4 in accordance with the time frames\nlisted below. The written plan must include the assessment method or methods\nTBPL will use to assess the line pipe and the method and measures TBPL will\nuse to measure whether its Integrity Management Program is effective in\nassessing and evaluating the integrity of each pipeline segment and in protecting\nhigh consequence areas,\nc. Within 120 days following receipt of the Final Order, TBPL must have an\nindependent third party, qualified by education and experience in integrity\nmanagement and ECDA, complete the effectiveness review required by\nCompliance Order Item 4 above.\nd. Within 150 days following receipt of the Final Order, TBPL must complete the\nassessment of the line pipe required by Compliance Order Items 2 and 3 above.\ne. Within 170 days following receipt of the Final Order, TBPL must provide to the\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Southern Region written\ndocumentation confirming that Compliance Order Items 2, 3 & 4 have been\ncompleted.\nf. Within 170 days following receipt of the Final Order, TBPL must make the\nrecords and documentation showing the completion of Compliance Order Items\n2, 3 and 4 available for inspection by PHMSA representatives.\n8. It is requested (not mandated) that TBPL maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the\ntotal to the Director, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Southern Region. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost\nassociated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nPage 8 of 8\n\n220126008_Final Order_09142012_text.pdf\n\nSEPTEMBER 14, 2012\nMr. Robert L. Rose\nPresident\nTampa Bay Pipeline Company\n5802 Hartford Street\nTampa, FL 33619\nRe: CPF No. 2-2012-6008\nDear Mr. Rose:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $66,100, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nTampa Bay Pipeline Company to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty\npayment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the\nterms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southern Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed\neffective upon the date of mailing, or 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. Wayne T. Lemoi, Director Southern Region, PHMSA\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\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 )\nTampa Bay Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 2-2012-6008\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn September 12-16, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the Integrity Management Plan (IMP) of\nTampa Bay Pipeline Company (TBPL or Respondent) in Tampa, Florida. Respondent operates\napproximately 100 miles of pipeline transporting anhydrous ammonia, a highly volatile liquid\n(HVL), and approximately 10 miles of hazardous liquid pipeline transporting refined petroleum\nproducts, all within the State of Florida.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated May 9, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that TBPL had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.452(c)(1)(i)(C),\n195.452(c)(1)(i)(D), 195.452(d)(1), 195.452(k), and 195.452(l)(1)(ii), and proposed assessing a\ncivil penalty of $66,100 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nRespondent failed to respond within 30 days of receipt of service of the Notice. Under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.209(c), such failure to respond constitutes a waiver of TBPL’s right to contest the\nallegations in the Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator, without further notice, to\nfind facts as alleged in the Notice and to issue this Final Order under § 190.213. In this case, the\nNotice was mailed to Respondent by certified mail (USPS Article No. 7008 1830 0003 0751\n0494) on May 9, 2012 and was received by Respondent on May 11, 2012, as shown by the return\n1 According to Articles of Merger filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Florida, Tampa Pipeline Limited\nPartnership merged with Tampa Pipeline Corporation on or around September 30, 2001. Tampa Pipeline\nCorporation and its related companies operate pipelines providing jet fuel to various airports: St. Louis Pipeline\nCorporation (St. Louis Pipeline); Illinois Petroleum Supply Corporation (Illinois Petroleum Supply); Illinois\nPipeline Corporation (Illinois Pipeline); Idaho Pipeline Corporation (Idaho Pipeline); Tampa Airport Corporation\n(Tampa Airport Pipeline); San Antonio Pipeline Corporation (San Antonio Pipeline); and Pipelines of Puerto Rico,\nInc. (San Juan Pipeline). http://www.sunbiz.org/corioff html (last accessed 7/24/2012)\n\n\n\n2\nreceipt on file with PHMSA. Furthermore, on June 19, 2012, representatives from Tampa\nPipeline Corporation, parent company of TBPL met with staff engineers in the Southern Region,\nOPS, discussed the Notice and reminded Respondent of its right to submit a written response to\nthe Notice.2 Later, the Southern Region, OPS contacted TBPL by telephone to remind the\nRespondent of its right to respond. To date, Respondent has not responded to the Notice. Under\nsuch circumstances, I find it reasonable and appropriate to enter this Final Order without further\nproceedings.3\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nTBPL did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(c)(1)(i)(C), which\nstates:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) …\n(c) What must be in the baseline assessment plan?\n(1) An operator must include each of the following elements in its\nwritten baseline assessment plan:\n(i) The methods selected to assess the integrity of the line pipe. An\noperator must assess the integrity of the line pipe by any of the following\nmethods. The methods an operator selects to assess low frequency electric\nresistance welded pipe or lap welded pipe susceptible to longitudinal seam\nfailure must be capable of assessing seam integrity and of detecting\ncorrosion and deformation anomalies.\n(A) …\n(C) Other technology that the operator demonstrates can provide an\nequivalent understanding of the condition of the line pipe. An operator\nchoosing this option must notify the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) 90\ndays before conducting the assessment, by sending a notice to the address\nor facsimile number specified in paragraph (m) of this section. 4\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(c)(1)(i)(C) by failing to\nproperly assess the integrity of its line pipe using other technology, External Corrosion Direct\nAssessment (ECDA) to perform its baseline assessment. Specifically, the Notice alleged that,\n2 49 C.F.R.§ 190.209, Response options.\n3 In the Matter of Tampa Pipeline Corporation, Final Order (CPF No. 2-2008-6002) (April 26, 2010), 2010 WL\n6531627, (D.O.T.), August 27, 2010; See also, In the Matter of Tampa Bay Pipeline Corporation, Final Order (CPF\nNo. 2-2005-6012 (Dec. 1, 2006), 2008 WL 902910 (D.O.T.), March 31, 2008. PHMSA final orders are generally\naccessible on the agency’s website, available at http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/Actions.\n4 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(C) (as revised in 67 Fed. Reg. 1660, 1661 (Jan. 14, 2002)), reflects the code language in\neffect when EDCA was considered “Other Technology” and at the time TBPL initiated its baseline assessment using\nECDA.\n\n\n\n3\nafter Respondent notified PHMSA of its intent to use other technology5\n, TBPL failed to properly\nassess the integrity of all above ground pipe and all pipe in vaults by not performing each step of\nthe ECDA Pre-Assessment, which included the ECDA Feasibility Assessment, Selection of\nIndirect Inspection Tools, and Identification of ECDA Regions.6\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(c)(1)(i)(C) by failing to\nproperly assess the integrity of its above ground pipe and pipe in vaults.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(c)(1)(i)(D), which\nstates in relevant part:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) ...\n(c) What must be in the baseline assessment plan?\n(1) An operator must include each of the following elements in its\nwritten baseline assessment plan:\n(i) The methods selected to assess the integrity of the line pipe. An\noperator must assess the integrity of the line pipe by any of the following\nmethods. The methods an operator selects to assess low frequency electric\nresistance welded pipe or lap welded pipe susceptible to longitudinal seam\nfailure must be capable of assessing seam integrity and of detecting\ncorrosion and deformation anomalies.\n(A) ...\n(D) Other technology that the operator demonstrates can provide an\nequivalent understanding of the condition of the line pipe. An operator\nchoosing this option must notify the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) 90\ndays before conducting the assessment, by sending a notice to the address\nor facsimile number specified in paragraph (m) of this section.7\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(c)(1)(i)(D) by failing to\nproperly assess the integrity of its line pipe in casings using, other technology, Guided Wave\nUltrasonic Testing (GWUT) to perform its baseline assessment. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat TBPL did not assess its entire line pipe in several casings because the inspection range of the\n5 Respondent notified the agency, by fax received on July 25, 2005, of its intent to use other assessment technology\nthat at a minimum followed American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), ASME B31.8S-2004, “Managing\nSystem Integrity of Gas Pipelines” and the National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE), NACE\nInternational Standard Practice, SP0502-2002, External Corrosion Direct Assessment. See Pipeline Safety Violation\nReport (Violation Report) dated May 9, 2012 at 44, Exhibit B.\n6 Violation Report at 3 and Exhibits A and B.\n7 §195.452(c)(l )(i)(D) (as revised in 70 Fed. Reg. 61576 (Oct. 25, 2005) designating paragraph (c)(1)(i)(C) as\n(c)(1)(i)(D)). This is also the code language in effect at the time TBPL undertook casing assessments using GWUT.\n\n\n\n4\nGWUT was less than the total length of the pipe in the casings, as indicated in the chart below:\n2-5 South side of 22nd St.\n- ½ mile W. Sagasta 40-feet 36-feet\nCasing Location Length of Pipe\nin Casing\nGWUT\nInspection Range\nRetaining Pond on Fishhawk Blvd. 1st\ncasing W of CR 640 6-10 Keysville Rd @ CR 640 68-feet 53-feet\n6-11 Bypass across CR 640@ County Line Rd 72-feet 42-feet\n7-20 50-feet 27-feet\n9-2 Nichols Rd & Anderson Rd 65-feet 43-feet\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(c)(1)(i)(D) by failing to\nproperly assess the integrity of its line pipe in several casings.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(d)(1), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) ...\n(d) When must operators complete baseline assessments? Operators\nmust complete baseline assessments as follows:\n(1) Time periods. Complete assessments before the following\ndeadlines:\nIf the pipeline is:\nThen complete baseline assessments not\nlater than the following date according to a\nschedule that prioritizes assessments:\nAnd assess at least 50 percent of the line\npipe on an expedited basis, beginning\nwith the highest risk pipe, not later than:\nCategory 1……... March 31, 2008……………………………… September 30, 2004.\nCategory 2……... February 17, 2009…………………………… August 16, 2005.\nCategory 3……... Date the pipeline begins operation…………... Not applicable.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(d)(1) by failing to complete its\nbaseline assessment of all line pipe in HCAs by the February 17, 2009 deadline. Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that TBPL identified its entire pipeline as being in an HCA8 and used ECDA,\n8 An HCA is defined as: (1) a commercially navigable waterway, which means a waterway where a substantial\nlikelihood of commercial navigation exists; (2) a high population area, which means an urbanized area, as defined\nand delineated by the Census Bureau, that contains 50,000 or more people and has a population density of at least\n1,000 people per square mile; (3) an other populated area, which means a place, as defined and delineated by the\nCensus Bureau, that contains a concentrated population, such as an incorporated or unincorporated city, town,\nvillage, or other designated residential or commercial area; and (4) an unusually sensitive area, as defined in\n§ 195.6. 49 C.F.R. § 195.450.\n\n\n\n5\nGWUT, and pressure testing to assess the integrity of its line pipe but failed to complete its\nassessment by the February 17, 2009 deadline. While Respondent used EDCA, GWUT and\npressure testing to assess its line, TBPL failed to assess all of the line pipe in vaults, above\nground line pipe, and line pipe in casings. As of the date of the inspection, TBPL exceeded the\ndeadline to assess the integrity of its line by 986 days.9\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(d)(1) by failing to complete\nits baseline assessment of all line pipe in HCAs by the February 17, 2009 deadline.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(k), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(k) What methods to measure program effectiveness must be used?\nAn operator’s program must include methods to measure whether the\nprogram is effective in assessing and evaluating the integrity of each\npipeline segment and in protecting the high consequence areas. See\nAppendix C of this part for guidance on methods that can be used to\nevaluate a program’s effectiveness.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(k) by failing to have in its IMP\nmethods to measure whether the program was effective in assessing and evaluating the integrity\nof each pipeline segment and in protecting high consequence areas (HCAs). Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that TBPL failed to include in its IMP, Section 2.0, Program Evaluation, methods\nto measure whether the program was effective in assessing and evaluating the integrity of each\npipeline segment and in protecting HCAs.\nPHMSA asserted that, in the absence of methods to measure the effectiveness of its program,\nRespondent’s IMP required a third party to perform an annual IMP evaluation and restated\nPHMSA’s Protocol# 8.01 Program Evaluation: Process Approach; Protocol# 8.02 Program\nEvaluation: Performance Measures; and Protocol # 8.03 Program Evaluation: Communication of\nEvaluation Results. During PHMSA’s inspection, TBPL did not demonstrate that it had\nperformed an effectiveness evaluation of its IMP program.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. TBPL’s reliance on a third party to\nperform an effectiveness evaluation of its IMP program does not negate its responsibility to have\nan IMP that assesses and evaluates the integrity of each pipeline segment. To find otherwise\nwould permit pipeline operators to shield themselves from their obligation to comply with the\nPipeline Safety Laws simply by contracting out their functions. Mimicking or simply repeating\nPHMSA’s guidance does not demonstrate compliance, as it does not take into account the unique\ncircumstances of TBPL’s particular system. There is no evidence that the company had\nperformed an effectiveness evaluation of its IMP program. Accordingly, based upon a review of\nall of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(k) by failing to include\n9 Violation Report at ","truncated":true,"body_characters":54070}