{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220126021","title":"TAMPA AIRPORT PIPELINE CORPORATION — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-10-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(b)(5), 195.452(d)(1), 195.452(g)(2), 195.452(h)(1), 195.452(h)(2), 195.452(l)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220126021.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220126021.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220126021","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220126021","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TAMPA AIRPORT PIPELINE CORPORATION. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(b)(5),  195.452(d)(1),  195.452(g)(2),  195.452(h)(1),  195.452(h)(2),  195.452(l)(1). The case was opened on 2012-10-23 and is reported as closed as of 2015-02-12. Proposed civil penalty: $77,400. Assessed civil penalty: $77,400. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220126021_closure letter_02122015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220126021/220126021_closure%20letter_02122015.pdf\n\n220126021_closure Letter_02122015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220126021/220126021_closure%20Letter_02122015_text.pdf\n\n220126021_Final Order_04042013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220126021/220126021_Final%20Order_04042013.pdf\n\n220126021_Final Order_04042013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220126021/220126021_Final%20Order_04042013_text.pdf\n\n220126021_NOPV_PCP_PCO_10232012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220126021/220126021_NOPV_PCP_PCO_10232012.pdf\n\n220126021_NOPV_PCP_PCO_10232012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220126021/220126021_NOPV_PCP_PCO_10232012_text.pdf\n\n220126021_closure Letter_02122015_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nFebruary 12, 2015\nMr. Robert L. Rose\nPresident\nTampa Airport Pipeline Corporation\nP.O. Box 35236\nSarasota, FL 34242\nCPF 2-2012-6021\nDear Mr. Rose:\nOn April 4, 2013, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (OPS) issued Tampa Airport Pipeline Corporation (TAPC) a Final\nOrder with an attached Compliance Order in the above-referenced case. The Compliance\nOrder required TAPC to undertake certain actions to ensure compliance with the federal\npipeline safety regulations.\nSubsequent to the Final Order, TAPC 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 TAPC and the supporting\ndocumentation, we have determined that TAPC 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 2-2012-6021)\nand not to any other PHMSA cases, if any.\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\n\n220126021_Final Order_04042013_text.pdf\n\nAPRIL 4, 2013\nMr. Robert L. Rose\nPresident\nTampa Airport Pipeline Corporation\nP.O. Box 35236\nSarasota, FL 34242\nRe: CPF No. 2-2012-6021\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 $77,400, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nTampa Airport Pipeline Corporation 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 Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Southern Region\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____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nTampa Airport Pipeline Corporation, ) CPF No. 2-2012-6021\n)\nRespondent. )\n)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn November 8-10, 2011, and on March 22, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a\nrepresentative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and\nPipeline Integrity Management Plan (IMP) of the Tampa Airport Pipeline Corporation (TAPC or\nRespondent) in Tampa, Florida. TAPC operates the Tampa Airport Pipeline, a 6-inch diameter\npipeline approximately 10.5 miles in length transporting jet fuel from Old Port Tampa to Tampa\nInternational Airport.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated October 23, 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 TAPC had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.452(b)(5), 195.452(d)(1),\n195.452(g)(2), 195.452(h)(1), 195.452(h)(2), and 195.452(l)(1) and proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $77,400 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to\ntake certain measures to correct several of 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 TAPC’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. 7010 2780 0001 0713\n8674) on October 23, 2012 and was received by Respondent on October 31, 2012, as shown by\nthe return receipt on file with PHMSA. To date, Respondent has never acknowledged or\nresponded to the Notice. Under such circumstances, I find it reasonable and appropriate to enter\nthis Final Order without further proceedings.\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(5), which states in\nrelevant part as follows:\n§ 195.452 -- Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n… (b) What program and practices must operators use to manage pipeline integrity?\nEach operator of a pipeline covered by this section must:\n… (5) Implement and follow the program.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(5) by failing to implement\nand follow its IMP as written. Specifically, the Notice alleged that TAPC’s IMP only listed in-\nline inspection (ILI) as an approved assessment method, but on March 17, 2010 TAPC used\npressure testing as an assessment method for its pipeline. Respondent did not contest this\nallegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(5) by not implementing and following its Integrity\nManagement Plan as written.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(5), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.452 -- Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n… (b) What program and practices must operators use to manage pipeline integrity?\nEach operator of a pipeline covered by this section must\n… (5) Implement and follow the program.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(5) by failing to perform\nannual risk assessments of its pipeline in accordance with its written IMP procedures.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that TAPC’s IMP required risk assessments to be conducted and\nthat those risk assessment methods be “reviewed and updated annually.” TAPC did not conduct\nrisk assessments of its pipeline or related facilities per its written procedures. TAPC personnel\nstated that their risk assessment is an on-going process and is reviewed on a continuing basis.\nUpon request, TAPC personnel failed to provide documentation of this on-going review process.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. I would note that once the baseline\nassessment of a pipeline segment is completed, the regulations do not require periodic re-\nassessments of that pipeline segment to be conducted annually. Respondent’s written procedures\ndid, however, require an annual evaluation of the risk assessment method used by Respondent in\nconducting risk assessments on its pipeline. The evidence showed that Respondent was unable\nto produce any records demonstrating completion of this annual evaluation of the risk assessment\nmethod. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(5) by failing to follow its written risk assessment procedures.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(d)(1), which states in\nrelevant part:\n\n\n\n3\n§ 195.452 -- Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n… (d) When must operators complete baseline assessments? Operators must complete\nbaseline assessment as follows:\n(1) Time periods. Complete assessments before the following deadlines:\nIf the Pipeline is:\nThen complete baseline assessments\nnot later than the following dates\naccording to a schedule that\nprioritizes assessments\nAnd assess at least 50 percent\nof the line pipe on an\nexpedited basis. Beginning\nwith the highest risk pipe, not\nlater 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 assess at\nleast 50 percent of its Category 2 line pipe in high consequence areas before August 16, 2005.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that while TAPC performed a pressure test in December 2004,\nthis pressure test did not meet the pressure test requirements of Part 195, Subpart E and therefore\nwas not a valid IMP assessment.\n1 Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 199.452(d)(1) by operating a Category 2 pipeline but failing to assess the required\namount of line pipe in high consequence areas by the required deadline, August 16, 2005.\nItem 4: 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… (d) When must operators complete baseline assessments? Operators must complete\nbaseline assessment as follows:\n(1) Time periods. Complete assessments before the following deadlines:\nIf the Pipeline is:\nThen complete baseline assessments\nnot later than the following dates\naccording to a schedule that\nprioritizes assessments\nAnd assess at least 50 percent\nof the line pipe on an\nexpedited basis. Beginning\nwith the highest risk pipe, not\nlater 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\nthe required baseline assessment of all of its category 2 line pipe in high consequence areas by\nFebruary 17, 2009. Specifically, the Notice alleged that while TAPC performed a pressure test\nin December 2004, this pressure test did not meet the pressure test requirements of Part 195,\nSubpart E and therefore was not a valid IMP assessment.2 In a letter to PHMSA dated January\n26, 2009, TAPC notified PHMSA that it attempted to assess the pipeline with ILI tools but was\n1 As noted in Item 1, pressure testing was not allowed as an assessment method under Respondent’s written IMP as\nit existed at the time of the inspection.\n2 As noted in Item 1, pressure testing was not allowed as an assessment method under Respondent’s written IMP as\nit existed at the time of the inspection.\n\n\n\n4\nunable to complete the assessment. The combination of the 2004 pressure test which was not a\nvalid IMP assessment and an incomplete ILI does not meet the regulatory requirement to\ncomplete a full assessment of a pipeline segment subject to IMP. Respondent did not contest this\nallegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(d)(1) by failing to complete the required baseline\nassessment of all of its category 2 pipeline by the February 17, 2009 deadline.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(g)(2), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.452 -- Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n… (g) What is an information analysis? In periodically evaluating the integrity of each\npipeline segment (paragraph (j) of this section), an operator must analyze all available\ninformation about the integrity of the entire pipeline and the consequences of a failure.\nThis information includes:\n… (2) Data gathered through the integrity assessment required under this section.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(g)(2) by failing to analyze all\navailable information about the integrity of its pipeline. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nTAPC failed to integrate all the report data from the 2008 and 2009 caliper and magnetic flux\nleakage (MFL) ILI tool runs in its data integration and analysis. While not all of these tool runs\nwere complete as noted in Item 4 above, they did produce some information about the integrity\nof the pipeline. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon\na review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(g)(2) by\nfailing to analyze all available information about the integrity of its entire pipeline.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(2), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.452 -- Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n… (h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n… (2) Discovery of condition. Discovery of a condition occurs when an operator has\nadequate information about the condition to determine that the condition presents a\npotential threat to the integrity of the pipeline. An operator must promptly but no later\nthan 180 days after an integrity assessment, obtain sufficient information about a\ncondition to make that determination, unless the operator can demonstrate that the 180-\nday period is impracticable.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(2), by failing to promptly,\nbut no later than 180 days after an integrity assessment, obtain sufficient information about the\nidentified conditions to make a determination that the conditions present a potential threat to the\nintegrity of the pipeline or, in the alternative, to demonstrate that the 180-day period was\nimpracticable. Specifically, the Notice alleged that TAPC, at the time of PHMSA’s inspection in\nNovember 2011, had not taken any actions to make a determination of discovery after receiving\nan integrity assessment report from its tool vendor on January 14, 2009 of the December 7, 2008\nEnduro caliper tool run which identified eight indications of integrity management conditions.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\n\n\n\n5\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(2), by failing to obtain\nsufficient information about conditions to make a determination of discovery within 180 days of\nan integrity assessment and failing to demonstrate that the 180-day period was impracticable.\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(1), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.452 -- Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n… (h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n(1) General Requirements. An operator must take prompt action to address all\nanomalous conditions the operator discovers through integrity assessment or information\nanalysis. In addressing all conditions, an operator must evaluate all anomalous conditions\nand remediate those that could reduce a pipeline’s integrity. An operator must be able to\ndemonstrate that the remediation of the condition will ensure the condition is unlikely to\npose a threat to the long-term integrity of the pipeline. An operator must comply with\n§ 195.422 when making a repair.\n… (4) Special requirements for scheduling remediation.\n(i) Immediate repair conditions. An operator's evaluation and remediation schedule\nmust provide for immediate repair conditions. To maintain safety, an operator must\ntemporarily reduce operating pressure or shut down the pipeline until the operator\ncompletes the repair of these conditions. An operator must calculate the temporary\nreduction in operating pressure using the formula in Section 451.6.2.2 (b) of\nANSI/ASME B31.4 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). An operator must treat the\nfollowing conditions as immediate repair conditions:\n… (D) A dent located on the top of the pipeline (above the 4 and 8 o'clock positions)\nwith a depth greater than 6% of the nominal pipe diameter.\n… (ii) 60-day conditions. Except for conditions listed in paragraph (h)(4)(i) of this\nsection, an operator must schedule evaluation and remediation of the following\nconditions within 60 days of discovery of condition.\n(A) A dent located on the top of the pipeline (above the 4 and 8 o'clock positions) with a\ndepth greater than 3% of the pipeline diameter (greater than 0.250 inches in depth for a\npipeline diameter less than Nominal Pipe Size (NPS) 12).\n(B) A dent located on the bottom of the pipeline that has any indication of metal loss,\ncracking or a stress riser.\n… (iii) 180-day conditions. Except for conditions listed in paragraph (h)(4)(i) or (ii) of\nthis section, an operator must schedule evaluation and remediation of the following\nwithin 180 days of discovery of the condition:\n(A) A dent with a depth greater than 2% of the pipeline's diameter (0.250 inches in depth\nfor a pipeline diameter less than NPS 12) that affects pipe curvature at a girth weld or a\nlongitudinal seam weld.\n(B) A dent located on the top of the pipeline (above 4 and 8 o'clock position) with a depth\ngreater than 2% of the pipeline's diameter (0.250 inches in depth for a pipeline diameter\nless than NPS 12).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(1), by failing to take action\nto address eight anomalous conditions on its pipeline after the completion of an integrity\nassessment that identified those conditions in January 2009. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\n\n\n\n6\neven after a PHMSA inspector called attention to the conditions in the 2009 tool vendor’s report\nin discussions with TAPC personnel in November 2011, when the inspector returned in March\n2012, TAPC still had not taken any actions to address these conditions or to schedule any of the\nconditions for remediation if the conditions could reduce the pipeline’s integrity. Respondent\ndid not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(1), by failing to take prompt\naction to address eight anomalous conditions on its pipeline after the completion of an ILI tool\nrun.\nItem 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l)(1), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.452 -- Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n… (h) 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.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l)(1) by failing to properly\ndocument certain decisions, analyses, justifications, and actions taken to implement and evaluate\neach element of its IMP. Specifically, the Notice alleged that TAPC failed to document the\nqualification of its Project Manager and Project Engineer for its assessments, as well as failing to\ndocument the analyses and decisions in the evaluations of TAPC’s leak detection capability, the\nneed for emergency flow restricting devices on its pipeline segment to protect a high\nconsequence area, and measures to prevent and mitigate the consequences of a failure that could\naffect a high consequence area. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l)(1) by failing to properly document the decisions, analyses, justifications,\nand actions taken to implement and evaluate each element of its IMP.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\n\n\n\n7\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $77,400 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $6,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(b)(5), for failing to implement and follow its IMP as written. With respect to the\nnature, circumstances, and gravity of this violation, any failure to follow a written IMP and use\nthe approved assessment method has the potential to impact safety. Respondent is culpable for\nthe violation as pipeline operators are obligated to accurately implement the IMP for the systems\nthey operate. Nothing in the record constitutes a good faith effort to comply prior to the OPS\ninspection. TAPC neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument\njustifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed\nthe record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $6,200\nfor violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(5).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $11,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(b)(5), for failing to perform annual risk assessments of its pipeline in accordance with\nits written IMP procedures. With respect to the nature, circumstances, and gravity of this\nviolation, failure to perform documented evaluations of its risk assessment methods has the\npotential to impact safety. Respondent is culpable for the violation as pipeline operators are\nobligated to accurately implement the IMP for the systems they operate. Nothing in the record\nconstitutes a good faith effort to comply prior to the OPS inspection. TAPC neither contested\nthe allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in or elimination of\nthe proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $11,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. §\n195.452(b)(5).\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(d)(1), for failing to assess at least 50 percent of its Category 2 line pipe in high\nconsequence areas before August 16, 2005. With respect to the nature, circumstances, and\ngravity of this violation, failure to perform risk assessments of the highest priority pipe segments\nsubject to IMP requirements by the regulatory deadline has the potential to impact safety.\nRespondent is culpable for the violation as pipeline operators are obligated to meet applicable\ndeadlines. Nothing in the record constitutes a good faith effort to comply prior to the OPS\ninspection. TAPC neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument\njustifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed\nthe record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000\nfor violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(d)(1).\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(d)(1), for failing to complete the required baseline assessment of all of its category 2\nline pipe in high consequence areas by February 17, 2009. With respect to the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of this violation, failure to perform risk assessments of all pipe\nsegments subject to IMP requirements by the regulatory deadline has the potential to impact\nsafety. Respondent is culpable for the violation as pipeline operators are obligated to meet\napplicable deadlines. Nothing in the record constitutes a good faith effort to comply prior to the\nOPS inspection. TAPC neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument\njustifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed\n\n\n\n8\nthe record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000\nfor violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(d)(1).\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(g)(2), for failing to analyze all available information about the integrity of its pipeline.\nWith respect to the nature, circumstances, and gravity of this violation, failure to integrate and\nanalyze all available information about pipeline integrity has the potential to impact safety.\nRespondent is culpable for the violation as pipeline operators are obligated to consider all\navailable information in maintaining the integrity of the systems they operate. Nothing in the\nrecord constitutes a good faith effort to comply prior to the OPS inspection. TAPC neither\ncontested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in or\nelimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered\nthe assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $10,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(g)(2).\nItem 6: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $15,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(h)(2), for failing to obtain sufficient information about conditions to make a\ndetermination of discovery within 180 days of an integrity assessment or, in the alternative,\nfailing to demonstrate that the 180-day period was impracticable. With respect to the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of this violation, failure to promptly document discovery of\nanomalous conditions following an ILI tool run has the potential to impact safety. Respondent is\nculpable for the violation as no circumstance would have prevented Respondent from obtaining\nthis information promptly from the tool vendor. Nothing in the record constitutes a good faith\neffort to comply prior to the OPS inspection. TAPC neither contested the allegation nor\npresented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed\npenalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I\nassess Respondent a civil penalty of $15,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(2).\nItem 7: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $15,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(h)(1), for failing to address eight anomalous conditions (and one possible anomalous\ncondition) on its pipeline after the completion of an integrity assessment. With respect to the\nnature, circumstances, and gravity of this violation, failure to take action to address anomalous\nconditions following an ILI tool run has the potential to impact safety. Respondent is culpable\nfor the violation as no circumstance would have prevented Respondent from taking action on\ninformation that was available from the tool vendor. Nothing in the record constitutes a good\nfaith effort to comply prior to the OPS inspection. TAPC neither contested the allegation nor\npresented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed\npenalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I\nassess Respondent a civil penalty of $15,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(1).\nItem 8: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(l)(1), for failing to properly document the decisions, analyses, justifications, and\nactions taken to implement and evaluate each element of its IMP. With respect to the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of this violation, failure to document decisions and actions taken to\nimplement its IMP has the potential to impact safety. Respondent is culpable for the violation as\npipeline operators are obligated to document such decisions to ensure affected personnel can\navail themselves of prior analyses and lessons learned in implementing the IMP. Nothing in the\n\n\n\n9\nrecord constitutes a good faith effort to comply prior to the OPS inspection. TAPC neither\ncontested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in or\nelimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered\nthe assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $10,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(l)(1).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $77,400.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $77,400 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.452(b)(5), 195.452(g)(2), 195.452(h)(2), 195.452(h)(1), and\n195.452(l)(1), respectively. 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. Pursuant to the\nauthority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the\nfollowing actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its\noperations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(b)(5) (Item 2), Respondent must\nperform and fully document the risk assessment for its pipeline system per its\nIMP procedures. Respondent must complete these activities within 30 days of\nreceipt of this Final Order, and provide written documentation confirming its\ncompletion to the Director, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Southern Region,\nwithin 45 days of receipt of this Final Order.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(g)(2) (Item 5) and §195.452(h)(2)\n(Item 6), Respondent must:\na. Review data from the 2008 and 2009 ILI tool run and identify anomalies\n\n\n\n3. 10\nwhich are IM conditions. This review must include analyzing, integrating,\nand evaluating the data from the ILI tool runs to identify anomalies so as to\nmake a determination of discovery for anomalous conditions on the pipeline.\nb. Complete Item 2a above by personnel who are qualified in these tasks by\nknowledge, training, and experience. The qualifications of these personnel\nmust be fully documented.\nc. Complete the requirements listed in Items 2a and 2b above within 45 days of\nreceipt of this Final Order and provide written documentation confirming their\ncompletion to the Director, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Southern\nRegion, within 60 days of receipt of this Final Order.\nWith respect to the violation of § 195.452(h)(1) (Item 7), Respondent must:\na. b. c. d. e. f. Take prompt action as required by its IMP procedures and by § 195.452(h) to\naddress all anomalous conditions discovered on its pipeline.\nRemediate those anomalous conditions that could reduce the pipeline’s\nintegrity, to include those determined based on Respondent’s integration and\nevaluation of the data from the 2008 and 2009 ILI tool runs.\nCompare the results of actual in-field evaluations of anomalies on the pipeline\nto the ILI tool data and then re-evaluate the ILI tool data if the in-field results\ndo not correspond with the ILI tool data. If the ILI tool data is re-evaluated,\nRespondent must perform the actions required by Items 2, 3a, and 3b above as\nneeded on the data provided by the re-evaluation.\nComplete Item 3c above by personnel who are qualified in these tasks by\nknowledge, training, and experience. The qualifications of these personnel\nmust be fully documented.\nComply with the time requirements of § 195.452(h) in addressing and\nremediating anomalous conditions identified on the pipeline.\nProvide the Director, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Southern Region\nmonthly reports on the status in completing the requirements of Items 3a, 3b,\nand 3c above.\n1) 2) The reports are due on the last day of the month with the first report\nrequired on the last day of the second month following receipt of the final\norder.\nThe reports must include at least the following information: a brief\ndescription of the TAPC’s status in addressing and remediating all\nanomalous conditions, identification of all anomalous conditions –\nlocations, IM condition, discovery date, status, and comments, as needed;\nand the results of the respondent’s comparison of actual in-field\n\n\n\n11\nevaluations of anomalies on the pipeline to the ILI data.\n3) The Director, Southern Region may allow these reports to be discontinued\nonce all identified anomalous conditions have been addressed, remediated,\nand reported by the respondent to the Director.\n4. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(l)(1) (Item 8), Respondent must\nprepare and maintain adequate documentation as required by § 195.452(k) and by\nits IMP within 120 days of receipt of this Final Order.\n5. It is requested (not mandated) that the Respondent document safety improvement\ncosts associated with fulfilling this Order and submit the total to the Director,\nSouthern Region. These costs should be reported in two categories: total cost\nassociated with preparation of plans, procedures, and analyses; and total cost\nassociated with replacements, and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all\nother terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":37592}