{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320025012","title":"EQUISTAR CHEMICALS, L.P. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2002-06-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(b)(2), 195.452(b)(6)(ii).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320025012.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320025012.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320025012","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320025012","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving EQUISTAR CHEMICALS, L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(b)(2),  195.452(b)(6)(ii). The case was opened on 2002-06-03 and is reported as closed as of 2008-11-14. Proposed civil penalty: $5,000. Assessed civil penalty: $5,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320025012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320025012/320025012.pdf\n\n320025012_Final Order_11252003.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320025012/320025012_Final%20Order_11252003.pdf\n\n320025012_Final Order_11252003.pdf\n\n?}\nU.S.Deportrnent\nof Tronsportotion\nReseorchond\nSpeciol Progroms\nAdministrotion\n400 Sevenlh St.. S.W\nWashinglon, D C 20590\nNOV 2 5 'r. ',\nDan F. Smith\nPresident & CEO\nEquistar Chemicals, LP\nP.O. Box 3646\nHouston, TX 77253-3646\nRe: CPF No. 3-2002-5012\nDear Mr. Smith:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued bythe Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the\nabove-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $5,000, and\nrequires that you amend your integrity management program procedures. When the civil penalty is\npaid and the amendment of procedures completed, as determined by the Director, Central Region,\nthis enforcement action will be closed. The penaltypayment terms are set forth in the Final Order.\nYour receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R. $ 190.5.\nSincerely,\n\\ ,/L\n{\"t Gwendolvn M. Hill\nPipeline Compliance RegistrY\nOf{ice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON. DC 20590\nIn the Matter of\nEquistar Chemicals, LP\nRespondent.\nCPF No. 3-2002-5012\nFINAL ORDER\nOn March 27-28,z\\O2,pursuant to 49 U.S.C. $ 60117, representatives of the Office of Pipeline\nSafety (OPS), conducted a segment identification and completeness inspection of Respondent's\nIntegntyManagement Program @yIP) in Alvin, Texas. As a result of the inspection, the Director,\nCentral Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated June 3, 2002, a Notice of Probable\nViolation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Notice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance with\n49 C.F.R. 5190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had violated 49 C'F.R.\n$ 195.452(b)(2) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $5,000 for the alleged violation. The\nNotice also proposed, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. S 190.237, that Respondent amend its IMP\nprocedures for identiffing pipeline segments that could affect high consequence areas (HCAs).\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dat edJwe24,2002 (Response). Respondent contested\nthe allegation, offered information to explain the allegation, and requested that the proposed civil\npenalty be reduced or eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing, and therefore has waived\nits right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nItem I in the Notice alleged that Respondent had violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195.452(bX2) by failing to\nidentiff all pipeline segments that could affect a high consequence area (HCA) by Decembet 31,\nZO0l. At the time of the December 31,2001deadline, Respondent had identified \"could affect\"\nsegments using its internal system maps and local knowledge ofHCAs. Although National Pipeline\nMapping System (I.1PMS) data and multiple extemal sources were available to identify and verify\nHCR aaia for Louisiana and Texas-the states in which Respondent's line operates-Respondent\ndid not employ any of these sources to identify \"could affect\" segments.\n\n\n\n2\nAs of December 31, 2001, Respondent had identified approximately 725 miles of \"could affect\"\nsegments. Subsequent to December 3 1, 2001\n, Respondent began identifying \"could affect\" segments\nusing contractor-prepared system overTay maps that were based on NPMS data and U.S. Geological\nSurvey quadrant maps. Utilizing the new system overlay maps based on extemal data sources\nsubsequent to the deadline yielded a significant increase in \"could affect\" segments identified. At\nthe time ofinspection, approximatelythree months afterthe deadline, Respondent had identified 858\nmiles of\"could affect\" segments. OPS inspectors determinedthatthe 15 percent differencebetween\nmiles identified before the deadline and at the time of inspection was due primarilyto Respondent's\nfailure to account for drinking water areas and at least one populated area.\nIn its Response, Respondent argued that \"no significant omission waranting punitive measures was\nmade.\" Respondent attribute the 15 percent increase in \"could affect\" segment mileage identified\nto error or omission and program refinement. Respondent noted that $ 195.452 requirements are\no'evergreen\" and procedures developed thereunder are \"always subject to continual improvement\nprocesses.\"\nWhile integrity management is a constantly evolving process, the \"could affect\" segment\nidentificationprocesswas anecessaryelementuponwhichall futureintegritymanagementprocesses\nwere to be based, thus requiring an absolute deadline. Respondent chose to relyup intemal data, and\ndid not consult available outside data sources, such as NPMS data, as suggested by Appendix C to\nPart 195. As a result, drinking water areas and at least one populated area were unaccounted for in\nRespondent's segment identificationprocess as ofthe December 31, 2001 deadline. These areas are\nexplicitly defined as HCAs in Part 195 and Respondent was fully apprised of its responsibility for\nidentiffing segments of pipeline that could affect them byDecember 3L,2001.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195.452(b)(2)bV failing to identify all\npipeline segments that could affect a high consequence area (HCA) by December 31, 2001.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. S 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of\nviolations.\n49 U.S.C. 5 60122 and 49 C.F.R. S 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\nofRespondent'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 Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F'R. $ 195.452(bX2)'\n\n\n\n3\nThe integrity management rules are intended to address risks in areas where the consequences of a\npipeline ielease are the greatest. These areas include populated areas and the most environmentally\nsensitive areas. The first step in the integrity management process is the identification of these\ncritical areas. Respondent's failure to identiff \"could affect\" segments by the December 31,2001\ndeadline is primarily attributable to Respondent's failure to consult readily available outside data\nsources. NPMS and other outside data for the states in which Respondent's pipeline operates was\navailable before the December 3l ,z}}Ldeadline for Respondent to identify the segments it missed.\nRespondent did not make a good faith effort to comply with the segment identification requirements\nof $ tqS.+52@)(2). The proposed penalty will not affect Respondent's ability to continue in\nbusiness.\nAccordingly, havingreviewedtherecord andconsideredthe assessment criteria,I assess Respondent\na total civil penalty of $5,000.\npayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Payment may be made by\n,rodirrg a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number for this case) payable to \"U. S.\nDepanmentofTransportation\" tolheFederalAviationAdministration,MikeMonroneyAeronautical\nCenter, Financial Oierations Division (ANIZ-120), P.O. 8ox25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125'\nFederal regulations (4g c.F.R. $ sg.21(bx3)) also permit this payment to be made bywire transfer,\nthrough the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account ofthe U.S. Treasury.\nDetailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions conceming wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (ANIZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25770, Oklahoma City, OK 73L25; (405) 954-4719'\nFailure to pay the $5,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in\naccordancewith3l u.s.c. g3i17,31 c.F.R. $ 901.9 and49c.F.R. $ s9.23. Pursuanttothosesame\nauthorities, alatepenalty rhutg\" of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not\nmade within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty mayresult in referral\nof the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United States District Court'\nAMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES\nThe Notice alleged inadequacies in Respondent's integrity management program and proposed to\nrequire amendrnent of Respondent's procedures to comply with the requirements of 49 C'F'R'\n$$ 195.452(bxz) and tgi.qs2&X6i(ii). Respondent did not contest the proposed Notice of\nAmendment and proposed a plan'of action to revise its procedures. Accordingly, I find that\nRespondent's procedures werelnadequate to ensure safe operation of its pipeline system' Pursuant\nto 49 U.S.C. $ 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. S Ig0.237,Respondent is ordered to make the following\nrevisions to its procedures' Respondent must -\n1. Provide fully-detailed process documentation for identifyrng segments that could affect\nHCAs (beyond a rudimentary list of data sources)'\n\n\n\n4\n2. Provide adequate technical justification for using the selected buffer zone and account\nfor transport mechanisms for identiffing segments that could affect high consequence\nareas.\n3. Consider in its technical justification that non-commercial navigable waterways, such\nas streams, may act as transport paths for releases of highly volatile liquids to a high\nconsequence atea.\n4. Consider the properties of highly volatile liquids (HVL) and carbon dioxide, the impact\nof weather conditions, topography, and the impacts these factors could have on human\nand animal life around the pipeline system.\n5. Submit the amended procedures to the Regional Director, Central Region, OPS within\n30 days following receipt of this Final Order.\n6. The Regional Director may extend the period for complying with the required items if\nthe Respondent requests an extension and adequately justifies the reasons for the\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Amendment 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. $ 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\nOrder and must contain abrief statement ofthe issues. The filing ofthe petition automatically stays\nthe payment of any civil penalty assessed. However, if Respondent submits payment for the civil\npenalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for\nreconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt.\nGerard\nfor Pipeline Safety\nDate Issued","truncated":false,"body_characters":11613}