BP PIPELINE (NORTH AMERICA) INC. — Notice of Probable Violation

320045015_Final Order_10142005.pdf, page 1Official PDF@ U.S. Deportrnent of Tronsporlollon Pipeline ond Hozordous rnoferiols Sqfety Administrqfion 400 Sevenlh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 OeT 1 4 n05 Mr. Jim Larctanna President BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. 28100 Torch Parkway Warrenville, IL 60555 Re: CPF No. 3-2004-5015 Dear Mr. Lamanna: Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $18,500. The Order also hnds that you have addressed the inadequacies in your procedures that were cited in the Notice of Amendment. When the civil penalty is paid, this enforcement action will be closed. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R. $ 190.5. Sincerely, {\ r, -[-^.^ {L4---= James Reynolds Pipeline Compliance Registry Office of Pipeline Safety Enclosure Ivan Huntoon Director, Central Region, OPS#

320045015_Final Order_10142005.pdf, page 2DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERI,ALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, DC 20590 In the Matter of BP Pipelines (North America) Inc., Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) CPF No. 3-2004-5015 FINAL ORDER During the weeks of Jrure 2,2003 and August 11,2003, pwsuant to 49 u.s.c. $ 60117, a representafive ofthe Office ofPipeline Safety(OPS), conducted anon-sitepipeline safetyinspection of Respondent's crude oil pipeline facilities and records in Manhattan, Illinois. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated,May 6,2004, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Notice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. 5 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had committed violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $ 18,500 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. $ 190.237, that Respondent amend its procedures for operations, maintenance and emergencies. Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated Iune 77,2004 (Response). Respondent did not contest the allegafions of violation but provided information conceming the corrective actions it has taken. Respondent did not request ahearing, and therefore has waived its right to one. FINDINGS OF VIOLATION In its response, Respondent did not contest the alleged violations in the Notice. Accordingly, I find that Respondent committed the following violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as more fully described in the Norice: 49 C.F.R. $ l95.a0a(c)(3) (Notice Item 2a) - failing to adequateiy document all required monthly breakout ta.nk inspections at the Manhattan facility in the 2001-2003 period; 49 C.F.R. $ 195.a04(c)(3) (Notice Item 2c) - failing to adequatelydocument high-pressure case sw-itcli ir-rspections fbr pumps 2-A and 2-B atthe Griffith-Lakehead station in 2001 and 2002.#

320045015_Final Order_10142005.pdf, page 32 49 C'F'R' I 195'428(a) (Irtrotice Item 3a) - failing to demonstrate that all required pressure relief device inspections were conductei at the Manhattan facility in the 2001-2002 period. These findings ofviolation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent. Under 49 U.S.C. S 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not '$t,OOd,OOO to exceed $100,000 per violation for each day of the violation up to a maximu.o of for any related series of violations. 49 U'S'C' fi 60122 atfi 49 C.F.R. $ 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of rJre civil penalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravily of the violation, Aeg"" ofRespondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, iespondent,s ability to pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliancq the effect on n".p*a"rri;, ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require. With respect toltemZa,the Noticeproposed that Respondentbe assessed a civil penalty of $15,000 for violating $ 1 95.a0a(c)(3) by failing to adequatelydocument all required monthly breakout tank inspectionsattheManhattanfacilityinthe2ooi-zoo:period. Thepipeiinesafetyregulationsrequire pipeline operators to maintain complete and accurate records of their facility inspections to ensurc that all inspections are performed within the applicable time interval. The failure to maintain complete and accurate records hinders the ability of OPS to determine whether an operator is operating its pipeline safely, and may hinder an operator's ability to adequately assess the status of its system and to promptly troubleshoot abnormal conditions. In its response, Respondent indicated that it had reviewed its record keeping practices to ensure that futuretankinspectionswouldbefullydocumented. Respondent,however,presentednoinformation that would waffant a reduction in the penalty amount proposed. in the Notice for this item. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $15,000 for this violation. W-ith.respect to Item2c,JheNoticeBroposedJhatRespsndent$e e$s€ssed,aeivi+penaltyof $1,O00 for violating $ 195.a0a(c)(3) by failing to adequately document high-pressure case switch inspections for pumps 2-A and2-B atthe Griffith-Lakehead station in 2001 and2002. The pipeline safety regulations require pipeline operators to maintain complete and accurate record.s of their facility inspections to ensure that all inspections are consistently performed within the applicable interval. The failure to maintain complete and accurate records hinders the ability oi-Ops to determine whether an oporator is operaling its pipeline sa,felrv, and ma.y hinde.r an operator,s ability to adequately assess the status of its system and to promptly troubleshoot abnormal conditions. In its response, Respondent indicated that it had reviewed its record keeping practices to ensure that future inspections would be fully documented. Respondent, however, presented no information that#

320045015_Final Order_10142005.pdf, page 43 would warrant a reduction in the penalty amouat proposed in the Notice for this item. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the-assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $ 1,000 for this violation. with respect to Item 3a' the Notice proposed that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of g2,500 for violating s 195 a28(a) by failing to demonstrate that all required pressure relief device inspections were conducted at the Manhattan facility in the 2001-2001 period. The pipeline safety regulations require pipeline operators to inspect andtest each pressure relief device at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and to maintain records of these inspections' Pressure relief devices protect the pipelin" system-from surges of a magnitude that can adversely affect the integrity of the pipeline. The failureio timely conduct and document pressure relief valve inspections at a piperine facility can have safety-rel#d impacts. In its response, Respondent indicated that it inspected and tested the specified pressure reliefvalves in2003, and that it had reviewed its record keeping practices to ensuri that future valve inspections would be fully documented. Respondent, however, presented no information that would wa.rrant a reduction in the penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this item. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of$2,500 for this violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $ 1 8,500. Pllment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49 C'F'R' $ 89.21(bX3)) require this paymentbe made bywire transfer, through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enciosure' Questions conceming wire transfers shouid be directed to: Financial operations Division (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aero nautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954_4719. Failure to pay the $ 18,500 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current arurual rate in accordancewith3lU.S.c.$3717,31c.F.R.$901.9and4gc.F.R.$g9.23. pursuanttorhosesame au-tLolities-a-lat-e-p-e-4alty charge-ofsixpercent(6golperarurum rvill.be eharg€di+payment is not made within I 10 days of service. Furthetmore, failure to pay the civil penalty *uy."rolt i1 referraL of the matter to the Attomey General for appropriate action in a United States District Court. AMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES The Notice alleged inadeo,uaeies in Responde.nt's procedures for operations, maintenance and emergencies and proposed to require amendment of Respondent's procedures to comply with the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 195. Specifically, Item I in the Notice alleged that Respondent's procedures for tank inspections were inadequate in that they did not provide clear direction that all#

320045015_Final Order_10142005.pdf, page 54 of the tanks that relieve.surgesin its pipeline system meet the definition of breakout tanks and musr be inspected on a monthly basis in accordance with $ 1g5.432 and ApI standard 653. -In its response, Respondent submitted copies ofits amendedprocedures, whichtheDirector, Central Region, oPS reviewed. Based on the results of this review, I find that Respondent,s original procedures as described in the Notice were inadequate to ensure safe operation ofiis pipehne sys"tfi, but that Respondent has corrected the identified inadequacies. Accordingly, no need exists to issue an order directing amendment. WARNINGiTEMS The Notice did not propose a civil penalty or corrective action for Item 2b in the Notice - failure to documentaninspectionofMainLineValve L37?5,orrlem3b-failure toproperlyinspectceitain valves at the Whiting terminal. Therefore, these are considered waming iterns. Respo"d; i; warned that if it does not take appropriate action to correct these items, eniorcement action wilt bJ taken if a subsequent inspection reveals a violation. Undet 49 C'F'R. $ 790.215, Respondent has a right to submit a petition for reconsideration of this Final order' Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be received within 20 ouy. oi Respondent's receipt of this Final order and must contain a brief statement ofthe issueGl. rrre n6.rg of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However ifR"spond# submits pay'rnent for the civil penalty, the Final order becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final order are effective on receiot. Administrator#