{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320055030","title":"AMOCO OIL CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2005-07-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(h)(2).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320055030.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320055030.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320055030","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320055030","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving AMOCO OIL CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.452(h)(2). The case was opened on 2005-07-11 and is reported as closed as of 2006-09-19. Proposed civil penalty: $50,000. Assessed civil penalty: $50,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320055030_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_09062006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320055030/320055030_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_09062006.pdf\n\n320055030_Final Order_04262006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320055030/320055030_Final%20Order_04262006.pdf\n\n320055030_final order_04262006_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320055030/320055030_final%20order_04262006_text.pdf\n\n320055030_Petition for Reconsideration_05182006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320055030/320055030_Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_05182006.pdf\n\nCPF_NO_3-2005-5030.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320055030/CPF_NO_3-2005-5030.pdf\n\nCPF_NO_3_2005_5030.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320055030/CPF_NO_3_2005_5030.pdf\n\n320055030_final order_04262006_text.pdf\n\nU. S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration\n400 Seventh Street, S W.\nWashington D. C. 20590\nAPR 26 Z0o\nMr. Jim Lamanna\nPresident\nBP Pipeline (North America) Inc.\n28100 Torch Pkwy\nWarrenville, IL 60555-3938\nRe: CPF No. 3-2005-5030\nDear Mr. Lamanna:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in\nthe above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation and assesses a civil penalty of\n$50, 000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action\ncloses automatically upon payment. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service under\n49 C. F. R. 5 190. 5.\nSincerely,\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnc1o sure\nCERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\nIn the Matter of\nBP Pipelines (Worth America) Inc.\n,\nRespondent\nCPF No. 3-2005-5030\nFINAL ORDER\nPursuant to 49 U. S. C. $ 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration's (PHMSA) Office of Pipeline Safety investigated a safety-related condition\nreport filed by Respondent on January 4, 2005 for its Manhattan to O'Hare 8-inch hazardous\nliquids pipeline. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated July 11, 2005, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil\nPenalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 207, the Notice proposed finding that\nRespondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 452(h)(2) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $50, 000\nfor the alleged violation.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated August 26, 2005. Respondent contested the\nallegation of violation and requested a hearing. The hearing was held on January 20, 2006 in\nKansas City, Missouri. After the hearing, Respondent provided additional information by letter\ndated February 16, 2006, including information referenced during the hearing.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 452(h)(2) by failing to obtain sufficient\ninformation to discover a condition that presented a potential threat to the integrity of the\npipeline within 180 days of an integrity assessment. In November 2003, Respondent performed\ntwo internal inspections on the Manhattan to O'Hare 8-inch hazardous liquids pipeline.\nRespondent ran a geometry tool on November 12, 2003, and a metal-loss tool on November 21,\n2003. Due to problems with the metal-loss tool, Respondent ran a second metal-loss tool on\nAugust 11, 2004. On October 14, 2004, Respondent received the preliminary results for both the\nNovember 2003 geometry and August 2004 metal-loss tools. Respondent received the final\nintegrated report for the runs on December 20, 2004 The final report identified a topside dent\nmeasuring approximately 10 5% of the nominal pipe diameter, an iminediate repair condition\nunder 49 C. F. R $ 195. 452(h)(4)(i)(D) Respondent submitted a safety-related condition report\non January 4, 2005 and completed repairs to the dent on January 21, 2005.\n\n\n\nSection 195. 452(h)(2) requires Respondent to promptly, but no later than 180 days after an\nintegrity assessment, obtain sufficient information to discover a condition and determine if the\ncondition presents a potential threat to the integrity of the pipeline. Respondent discovered the\ncondition on December 20, 2004 when Respondent received the final report from the tool\nvendor, approximately 13 months (404 days) after the November 2003 geometry tool integrity\nassessment Accordingly, the Notice alleged Respondent failed to identify the condition within\n180 days of the November 12, 2003 geometry tool integrity assessment. The Notice also alleged\nRespondent has previously violated $ 195. 452(h)(2). '\nIn its responses and at the hearing, Respondent asserted that it complied with $ 195. 452(h)(2)\nbecause that regulation required Respondent to discover the topside dent within 180 days of the\nAugust 2004 metal loss tool run, not the November 12, 2003 geometry tool run. Respondent\nexplained that it had followed its written integrity management procedures for data integration.\nRespondent's procedures \"specified that discovery of a reportable condition would occur when\nboth the deformation tool and corrosion tool runs were completed and the combined report was\nreceived and reviewed by BP personnel. \" Accordingly, Respondent instructed the tool vendor\nto integrate data from both tool runs when reporting results of the integrity assessments. Because\nthe metal loss tool run was delayed, Respondent did not receive the final integrated report\nidentifying the topside dent until December 20, 2004. Respondent explained it was not able to\ndiscover the topside dent sooner, because it had not received the necessary information from the\ntool vendor.\nRespondent insisted that its data integration practices complied with g 195. 452(h)(2) and\nPHMSA guidance, specifically, PHMSA Integrity Management Program Frequently Asked\nQuestions (FAQs). Respondent asserted that pursuant to PHMSA FAQ 4. 13, the 180-day\nperiod for discovery did not begin until the August 2004 metal loss tool run, because the\ngeometry and metal-loss tool runs were a scheduled series of tool runs. Respondent noted that it\ndiscovered the topside dent within 180 days of the August 2004 metal-loss tool run.\nThe FAQ 4. 13 cited by Respondent addresses \"baseline assessments\" and the requirement at\n$ 195. 452(d)(1) that operators meet a regulatory deadline for performing a baseline assessment.\nUnder FAQ 4. 13, a baseline assessment is not complete (for purposes of compliance with the\ndeadline) until the last tool run of a scheduled series of runs is completed. Contrary to\nRespondent's position, the FAQ reminds operators that \"Ie)valuation of the assessment results\nPHMSA's predecessor agency, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA),\nissued Notice of Probable Violation (NOPV) CPF No 5-2003-5031 on December 15, 2003 allegmg\nRespondent violated g 195 452(h)(2) Respondent did not contest that allegation and on May 16, 2003,\nRSPA issued a Final Order finding Respondent violated $ 195 452(h)(2) as alleged in the NOPV\nResponse at p. 1, August 26, 2005.\nPHMSA publishes answers to frequently asked questions concernmg compliance with the\nmtegrity management regulations at htt II nmis hmsa dot ovIiim. Answers to FAQs are not rules, but\nprovide informal guidance to the regulated community about how to implement their integrity\nmanagement programs in accordance with the requirements of 49 C F R $ 195 452.\n\n\n\nmust still be performed in accordance with the requirements established for these activities\" and\noperators will be expected to evaluate results within 180 days even in those instances in which\nonly a partial assessment is performed. Accordingly, Respondent should have promptly, but\nwithin 180 days, obtained information &om the November 12, 2003 geometry tool run\nnotwithstanding the delay in the metal loss tool run. Section 195. 452(h)(2) places the burden on\nRespondent to obtain sufficient information from the tool vendor.\nRespondent also cited FAQ 6. 6. That guidance recognizes in some situations an operator may\nrun a deformation tool and a metal-loss tool at different times and integrate the data. The topic\nof FAQ 6 6 is the effect of a separation in time between two runs when calculating a\n\"reassessment interval, \" which is not germane to the issue in the present case.\nRespondent also quoted the preamble to 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 452(h)(2) to show that \"discovery\" is\nflexible. Although PHMSA's predecessor agency, the Research and Special Programs\nAdministration (RSPA), stated in the preamble of the rule that discovery is flexible and varies\ndepending on circumstances, RSPA also stated there is \"an upper limit on the length of the\ndiscovery process. An operator must promptly obtain the information from an assessment to\nensure that remediation of a condition which could threaten a pipeline's integrity occurs soon\nafter an integrity assessment. The discovery process (the process for obtaining the adequate\ninformation) will end 180 days after an integrity assessment unless an operator can demonstrate\nthat the 180-day period is impracticable. \" Respondent has not demonstrated the 180-day period\nwas impracticable. Accordingly, Respondent should have complied with the 180-day upper limit\non the length of the discovery process.\nThe November 12, 2003 geometry tool run constituted an integrity assessment, which obligated\nRespondent to obtain promptly, but no later than 180 days aAer the assessment, the assessment\ndata and determine whether conditions presented a threat to the pipeline. The data from the\ngeometry tool run would have been sufflicient to identify the topside dent measuring\napproximately 10. 5% of the nominal pipe diameter had Respondent obtained the assessment data\npromptly. Accordingly, I find Respondent violated g 195. 452(h)(2) by failing to promptly obtain\nsufficient information to discover a condition and determine that the condition presented a\npotential threat to the integrity of the pipeline. This finding of violation will be considered a\nprior offense in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U. S. C. $ 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 The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $50, 000 for violation of $ 195. 452(h)(2).\n49 U. S C. $ 60122 and 49 C F. R. $ 190. 225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the followmg criteria. nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\ndegree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability\n67 Fed Reg. 16SO, January 14, 2002.\nId at 1653\n\n\n\nto pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on\nRespondent's ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.\nDuring the hearing, Respondent explained it did not intentionally neglect to analyze the integrity\nassessment data, but followed its procedures for data integration believing the procedures met\nPHMSA regulations and guidance. Respondent has since modified its procedures to establish a\ntime frame wherein Respondent would not allow any completed single tool run data to remain at\na vendor more than 90 days without Respondent having access to the final report.\nRespondent also contested the assertion in the Notice that this is a repeat offense, explaining that\nthe violation of $ 195. 452(h)(2) in Final Order CPF No. 5-2003-5031, issued May 16, 2005, is\nnot related to the present case. Respondent pointed to Item 3 in that case as supportive evidence.\nHowever, it was Item 5 in that case that found Respondent did not have procedures requiring ILI\nreports to be received in sufficient time to allow discovery within 180 days. That is closely\nrelated to the violation in the present case based on Respondent's failure to obtain ILI report data\nwithin 180 days of an integrity assessment. Although Final Order CPF No. 5-2003-5031 found\nRespondent had corrected the procedural inadequacy identified in that case, that finding does not\npreclude the present case because Respondent did not comply with the regulatory requirement at\n$ 195. 452(11)(2).\nThe topside dent condition discovered on Respondent's Manhattan to O'Hare 8-inch hazardous\nliquids pipeline was an \"immediate repair condition\" pursuant to 49 C. F. R.\n$ 195452(h)(4)(i)(D). The dent was located approximately 7 miles from Chicago O'Hare\nInternational Airport next to a highway, an area defined as a high consequence area pursuant to\ng 195. 450. The pipeline was operated with an immediate repair condition for more than eight\nmonths beyond the 180-day limit for discovery. Although operating pressure at the location of\nthe dent was a low percentage of the pipe's specified minimum yield strength (SMYS), a dent\nmeasuring approximately 10. 5% of the nominal pipe diameter can result in a pipeline rupture\ncausing harm to the high consequence populated area.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a total civil penalty of $50, 000. Respondent has the ability to pay this penalty\nwithout adversely affecting its ability to continue in business.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49\nC. F. R. $ 89. 21(b)(3)) require this payment 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-300), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P. O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $50, 000 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 United\n\n\n\nStates District Court.\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 received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this\nFinal Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However, if Respondent submits\npayment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative action and the\nright to petition for reconsideration is waived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt.\nSta\nAs\n&PR 26 Zoo™\nDate Issued\ne Gerard\nciate Administrator\nr Pipeline Safety\n\n320055030_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_09062006.pdf\n\nU.S.Department 400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\nSEP - 6 20%\nMr. Jim Lamanna\nPresident\nBP Pipelines (North America) Inc.\n28 100 Torch Parkway\nWarrenville, IL 60555-3938\nRE: CPF No. 3-2005-5030 Petition for Reconsideration\nDear Mr. Lamanna:\nEnclosed is the Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration issued in the above-referenced case.\nThe Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety has denied the relief sought by Respondent.\nOn April 26,2006, the Associate Administrator for the Office of Pipeline Safety issued a Final Order\nto BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. It made findings of violation and assessed a civil penalty of\n$50,000. Payment of the $50,000 penalty assessed is due. This enforcement action closes\nautomatically upon payment. Your receipt of this Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration\nconstitutes service under 49 C.F.R. $j190.5.\nSincerely,\n'4\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: G.E. Schau, Manager, HSSE & Integrity, BP Pipelines (North America) Inc.\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n)\nIn the Matter of 1\nBP Pipelines (North America) Inc., )\n) CPF NO. 3-2005-5030\n1\nRespondent ?\nDECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION\nOn April 26,2006 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 9 60112, a Final Order was issued in this case, assessing\nRespondent a civil penalty of $50,000 for violating 49 C.F.R. §195.452(h)(2). On May 22,2006,\nRespondent filed a petition requesting reconsideration (Petition) of that Final Order. The Petition\nautomatically stayed payment of the civil penalty pending a decision on the Petition. The Petition\nraised issues including, whether discovery should have been declared earlier based on the geometry\ntool run as alleged in Final Order; whether the changes to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 4.13\nwere in effect at the time that determinations were made by Respondent regarding the integration of\nthe data; whether CPF No. 5-2003-5031 is used as evidence of prior violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§195.452(h)(2); and reconsideration of the paragraph in the Final Order regarding FAQ 6.6.\nIn accordance with 49 C.F.R. $1 90.2 13, in the event the Associate Administrator, OPS reconsiders a\nfinal order, a final decision on reconsideration may be issued without further proceedings.\nRespondent's Petition did not request that the civil penalty be withdrawn or reduced waiving further\nright to appeal.\nAlthough, 49 C.F.R. $ 190.215(b) and (c) clearly states that if the respondent requests the\nconsideration of additional facts or arguments, the respondent must submit the reasons they were not\npresented prior to the issuance of the final order. Respondent failed to submit herein the reasons why\nadditional facts or arguments were not presented prior to the issuance of the final order. In\nfurtherance, 190.21 5(c) states that the Associate Administrator, OPS does not consider repetitious\ninformation, arguments, or petitions. While Respondent's failure to satisfy 49 C.F.R. 5 190.2 15(b)\nand (c) justifies a determination that this Petition not be considered, in PHMSA's interest to provide\ninterpretive assistance about compliance with pipeline safety regulations and to clarify uncertainty\nabout the meaning and extent of regulatory requirements, I have decided to consider Respondent's\nPetition.\n\n\n\nBACKGROUND\nThe Final Order found that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h) (2) by failing to obtain\nsufficient informationto discover a top side dent measuring approximately 10.5%of the nominal\npipe diameter on its Manhattan to O'Hare Airport 8-inch hazardous 1i.quidspipeline within 180\ndays of an integrity assessment despite the availability of this information. This condition\npresented a potential threat to the integrity of the pipe, as a topside dent measuringapproximately\n10.5% of the nominal pipe diameter can result in a rupture increasingthe risk of harm to people,\nproperty and the environment in a High Consequence Area. The timeline was as follows:\nNovember 12,2003, Respondent ran a geometry tool.\nNovember 21,2003, Respondent ran a metal loss tool but experienced problems.\nAugust 11,2004, Respondent ran another metal loss tool.\nOctober 14,2004, Respondent received preliminary results from both tool runs.\nDecember 20,2004, Respondent received final integrated report for both runs.\nDecember 20, 2004, final integrated report identified a topside dent measuring\napproximately 10.5%of the nominal pipe diameter,an immediaterepair condition.\nJanuary 4,2005, Respondent submitted a safety-related condition report.\nJanuary 21,2005, Respondent completed repairs to the dent.\nThe Final Order determined that Respondent should have promptly, but within 180 days, obtained\nsufficient information to discover the top side dent based on the November 12,2003 geometry tool\nrun. Respondent should have obtained sufficientinformationfrom the geometrytool rundespitethe\ndelay in the metal loss tool run. The Final Order further determined that the geometry tool run\nconstituted an integrity assessment. This integrity assessment required Respondentto obtain, within\n180 days, the assessment data and determine whether conditions presented a threat to the pipeline.\nThe Final Order found that data from the November 12,2003 geometry tool runprovided sufficient\ninformation to discover the topside dent and determine it presented a potential threat.\n1. 49 C.F.R. 5 195.452(h)(2) - Whether \"discovery\" of a condition that presented a\npotential threat to the integritv of the pipeline occurred with the geometry tool run.\nRespondent petitionsthat it has not violated federal pipeline safety regulations. Respondent repeats\nits position. \"As stated in previous correspondence, BPPL was followingits existing written integrity\nmanagement proceduresfor data integrationand, consistentwith those procedures,utilized the \"Final\nReport\" information from a valid metal loss tool run to then integrate the data and make a\ndetermination as to whether or not there was a discovery of a condition pursuant to the integrity\nmanagement rules\". (Petition, p. 1) Respondent repeated the argument in its Petition that there was\nnot adequate information based upon the geometry tool results alone and that it was necessary and\nappropriate to wait for the metal loss tool data to determinethe date of \"discovery of condition\". (Id)\n\n\n\nAdditionally, Respondent repeated its position that the tool run assessment obligations in Frequently\nAsked Questions (FAQ) 4.13 dated 10/12/02 contemplates the integration of data when both the\ncorrosion and deformation tool information are integrated and used in the assessment and repair. (Id)\nFirst, PHMSA publishes answers to FAQs concerning compliance with the integrity management\nregulations. Answers to FAQs are neither rules, regulations nor laws, but informal guidance to the\nregulated community about how to implement their integrity management programs in accordance\nwith the requirements in 49 C.F.R. 3 195.452. The intent is for FAQs to provide clarification of\nrules, regulations and requirements.\nThe October 12,2002 version of FAQ 4.13' addresses the following questions: 1) whether multiple\ntool runs are needed to constitute an assessment under 49 C.F.R. 3 195.452(c)(l)(i), and 2) whether\nthe date of the assessment is the day when the tool run is complete, when the preliminary data is\nreceived, or when the evaluation of the in-line inspection results is complete. FAQ 4.13 also provides\nexamples of assessments, which are subject to change with technological developments and\nregulatory changes, as demonstrated by the inclusion of addition language in December 2005. The\nDecember 16,2005 revision introduced \"direct assessment\" as an acceptable assessment method.\nLanguage on \"direct assessment\" was added because 49 C.F.R. 3 195.452 had been changed to add\nthat method. The second change, to add language on \"ILI tool runs,\" is for clarity. More\nimportantly, the last paragraph of FAQ 4.13 never changed, was in effect at the time of the January 4,\n2005 inspection and has been the same since October 2002. The last paragraph of FAQ 4.13 reads,\n\"In those rare instances in which only a partial assessment is performed (e.g., in-line inspection\nsystem loss of power results in loss of data near the end of a pig run) operators will be expected to\nevaluate the results that were obtained within 180 days of the early termination, in accordance with\n195.452(h)(2). If however, the quality of the partial data is suspect and an entire rerun is to be\nperformed, then the evaluation will be expected within 180 days after the successful rerun.\" This\nsentence addresses a partial assessment.\n'\nFAQ 4.13 For purposes of meeting the deadlines for completing baseline assessments, is the date of the\nassessment considered to be the day when the tool run is complete, when the preliminary data is received, or\nwhen the evaluation of the in-line inspection results is complete?\nThe date on which an assessment is considered complete will be the 'date on which final field activities related to\nthat assessment are performed, not including repair activities. That will be when a hydrostatic test is completed,\nwhen the last in-line inspection tool run of a scheduled series of tool runs is performed, or the date on which \"other\ntechnology\" for which an operator has provided timely notification is conducted.\nEvaluation of the assessment results, integration of other information, and repair of anomalies must still be\nperformed in accordance with the requirements established for these activities in the rule. These activities are\nconsidered to occur after the completion of the \"assessment\".\nIn those rare instances in which only a partial assessment is performed (e.g., in-line inspection system loss of power\nresults in loss of data near the end of a pig run)operators will be expected to evaluate the results that were obtained\nwithin 180 days of the early termination, in accordance with 195.452(h)(2). If however, the quality of the partial data\nis suspect and an entire rerun is to be performed, then the evaluation will be expected within 180 days after the\nsuccessful rerun. Last Revision: 10/12/02\n\n\n\nRespondent is correct that the tool run assessment obligations in FAQ 4.13 dated Octoberl2,2002\ncontemplates the integration of data when both the corrosion and deformation tool information are\nintegrated and used in the assessment and repair. However, Respondent must place this guidance in\nthe appropriate context. As there is no suggestion that an operator wait to obtain the assessment\nresults from one completed tool run until the other tool run is completed. A deformation tool run is\nan integrity assessment. A metal loss tool run is an integrity assessment. An assessment is complete\non the date in which final field activities related to that assessment are performed. An operator must\nevaluate the assessment results in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.452. These evaluation activities\noccur after the completion of the \"assessment\".\nOn November 12,2003, the geometry tool run was successfully completed, which constituted an\nintegrity assessment. At this point, Respondent had many opportunities to evaluate the assessment\nresults. An operator must promptly obtain the information from an assessment to ensure that\nremediation of a condition which could threaten a pipeline's integrity occurs soon after an integrity\nassessment. No additional information was needed, beyond the geometry tool results, to identifjr as\nan immediate repair condition a dent on the top of a pipeline (8 o'clock to 4 o'clock) that is greater\nin depth than 6% of pipeline diameter. Discovery of a condition occurs when an operator has\nadequate information about the condition to determine that the condition presents a potential threat to\nthe integrity of the pipeline. An operator must promptly, but no later than 180 days after an integrity\nassessment, obtain sufficient information about a condition to make that determination, unless the\noperator can demonstrate that the 180-day period is impracticable.\nThe metal loss tool run on November 21, 2003 was problematic. Due to unexpected difficulties,\nRespondent was unable to obtain anticipated data from the metal loss tool run. Nevertheless,\nRespondent had adequate information from the geometry tool run available for evaluation to\ndiscover the condition. In those rare instances in which only a partial assessment is performed (e.g.,\nin-line inspection system loss of power results in loss of data near the end of a pig run) operators will\nbe expected to evaluate the results that were obtained within 180 days of the early termination, in\naccordance with 195.452(h)(2).\nDue to Respondent's data integration practices and instructions to its tool vendor to integrate data\nfrom both tool runs, the geometry tool run data was unevaluated until completion of the metal loss\ntool run. Respondent did not complete the metal loss tool run until August 1 1,2004 and received the\nfinal integrated report that identified the dent on December 20, 2004. During the months that\nelapsed between the deformation tool run and the metal loss tool run, a condition that presented a\npotential threat to the integrity of the pipeline was unimpeded. Operators are to act promptly to\nobtain sufficient information to evaluate assessment results. Operators should act on the available\ninformation. Sufficient information was available on November 12,2003. Respondent has provided\nno information or argument that the 180-day period was impracticable.\nThe framework for operators to follow is set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 195.452 and provides some\nflexibility in achieving compliance. For the above stated reasons, I affirm the finding that\n\"discovery\" occurred on November 12,2003, as Respondent had sufficient information from the\n\n\n\nNovember 12, 2003 geometry tool run about the topside dent to determine that the condition\npresented a potential threat to the integrity of the pipeline.\n2. Reconsideration of the paragraph in the Final Order regarding FAQ 6.6\nRespondent petitions reconsideration of the paragraph in the Final Order that addresses FAQ 6.6.\n(Final Order, p.3). While Respondent raises concerns about the discussions on FAQ 6.6, Respondent\ncited FAQ 6.6 in defense of its position about the significant period between the geometry tool run\nand the metal loss tool run. It is Respondent's position that the value in citing FAQ 6.6 is that it is\nthe only place in the IMP regulations where the terms \"Separated in Time\" and \"Assessment\" are\ndefined and that PHMSA recently revised or incorporated similar language by referencing FAQ 6.6\nin FAQ 4.13. Respondent's interpretation is that the assessment is not complete until the last in-line\ninspection tool run of an integrated set of tool runs is performed or when the last direct examination\nassociated with external corrosion direct assessment is made, or the date on which filed activities for\nother technology is conducted. Respondent concluded that its assessment was not complete until the\nAugust 11,2004 metal loss tool run.\nContrary to Respondent's position, since October 2002, FAQ 4.13 explained that operators are to act\nto evaluate partial assessment results if they do not have a completed assessment. Although FAQs\n4.13 and 6.6 explains completion of an assessment, Respondent must read carefully the question that\nthe FAQ answers and place the answer in the appropriate context. It is inaccurate to state or interpret\nFAQ 4.13 as having incorporated language or referencing language from FAQ 6.6. FAQ 4.13 was\npublished because operators asked if both tool runs have to be complete to meet the rules compliance\ndeadlines. FAQ 6.6 does not address the question of discovery. FAQ 6.6 addresses another question,\nthe need for two tool runs and how close in proximity the geometry and metal loss tool run should\noccur. There is nothing in either FAQ 4.13 or 6.6 that tells an operator they do not need to promptly\nreview geometry tool results if they have a completed geometry tool run.\nIn furtherance, API- 1 160 Managing System Integrity for Hazardous Liquid Pipelines published in\nNovember 2001, establishes the need for operators to obtain preliminary tool run reports and to\nreview them for serious defects. While the standard does not explicitly call out top-side dents as in\nthe IM rule, it explains that operators should act on information they have in hand to be sure there are\nnot any serious anomalies that require immediate attenti~n.~\nWhen a pipeline is inspected by an in-line inspection tool, the final results of the inspection should be provided to the\noperator within six months. However, certain types of potential defects should be brought to the operator's attention\nthrough a preliminary report. The following could present an immediate concern and should be reported by the in-line\ninspection vendor as soon as possible, but within thirty days. Metal loss greater than 80% of nominal wall regardless of\ndimensions. These anomalies can be temporarily mitigated by on-site monitoring, leak test, pressure reduction, or other\nmitigative actions until the anomaly has been excavated, assessed, and repaired, ifnecessary. Remaining strength ofthe\npipe results in a predicted burst pressure that is less than the MOP at the location of the anomaly using a suitable\nremaining strength calculation method. Temporary mitigative actions include reduction in operating pressure with\nconcurrent resetting of pressure relief device setpoints, or other mitigative actions until the anomaly can be excavated,\nassessed and repaired if necessary. As for top of the line dents (above four and eight o'clock positions) with any\nindicated metal loss, temporary mitigative actions include reduction in operating pressure with concurrent resetting of\n\n\n\nWhen a partial assessment is performed operators are expected to evaluate the results that were\nobtained within 180 days of the early termination, in accordance with 195.452(h)(2). When a\nsignificant amount of time elapses between the deformation tool run and the metal loss tool run an\noperators are expected to act on the information it has available. For the above stated reasons, I find\nthat Respondent presented no new information upon which to reconsider the original finding.\n3. Whether \"discoverv\" of a condition is tied solely to the date of the tool run\nIt is Respondent' position that findings in the Final Order that \"discovery\" of a condition is tied\nsolely to the date of the tool runs and that \"tools runs should be reviewed independently are vague\nand not define specifically till much later in the revisions of the FAQ's. Respondent argued that the\nAgency's position that discovery of a condition is tied solely to the date of tool runs is a 12/16/05\nchange to FAQ 4.13 and was not in effect during the time in question. (Petition, pgs. 1 & 2)\nRespondent also repeats its contention that it discovered the topside dent within 180 days of the\nAugust 2004 metal loss tool run. Respondent also posed that previous inspection teams never\nelevated as an area of concern its practice of declaring \"discovery\" after successful completion of\nboth tool runs. (Petition, pg. 1)\nContrary to Respondent's position, discovery is not tied solely to the date of the tool run but to the\nfact that at the completion of a tool run there are assessment results from which an operator can\nobtain sufficient information about the condition to determine that condition presents a potential\nthreat to the integrity of the pipeline. Since October 12,2002, FAQ 4.13 has informed operators that,\n\"Evaluation of the assessment results.. .must still be performed in accordance with the requirements\nestablished for these activities in the rule. These activities are considered to occur after the\ncompletion of the \"assessment\".\" There is no suggestion or guidance directing an operator to wait\nuntil both the deformation tool run and the corrosion tool runs are complete to evaluate the\nassessment results to obtain information, as an operator must promptly, but no later than 180 days\nafter an integrity assessment, obtain sufficient information about a condition, which could threaten a\npipeline's integrity.\nAgain, On November 12, 2003, the geometry tool run was successfully completed. At this point,\nRespondent had many opportunities to evaluate the assessment results. An operator must promptly\nobtain the information from an assessment to ensure that remediation of a condition which could\nthreaten a pipeline's integrity occurs soon after an integrity assessment. No additional information\nwas needed, beyond the geometry tool results, to identifj as an immediate repair condition a dent on\nthe top of a pipeline (8 o'clock to 4 o'clock) that is greater in depth than 6% of pipeline diameter.\nThe November 12,2003 geometry tool run provided sufficient information to discover the topside\ndent and determine it presented a potential threat.\n--\npressure relief device setpoints, or other mitigative actions until the anomaly can be excavated, assessed, and repaired if\nnecessary.\n\n\n\nWhen faced with uncertainty about the meaning and extent of the regulatory requirements, the\nRespondent failed to request from OPS an interpretation of the regulation. In furtherance, 49 C.F.R.\n190.11 provides for informal guidance and interpretive assistance about compliance with pipeline\nsafety regulations, 49 CFR parts 190- 199. If Respondent needs clarification, information on, and\nadvice about compliance with pipeline safety regulations, then Respondent should take advantage of\ns190.11 to resolve any questions or concerns regarding compliance.\n4. Whether CPF No. 5-2003-5031 is used as evidence of prior violation of 49 C.F.R.\ns195.452(h)(2); Whether previous inspection teams demonstrated concern about\nRespondent's practice of declaring \"discoverv\" after completion of both tool runs.\nDuring March 10- 14 and March 3 1 -April 4,2003, representatives of the Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), Western, Central, Southern and Southwest Regions and the Washington Utilities and\nTransportation Commission conducted an Integrity Management (IM) inspection of Respondent's\nintegrity management program in Lisle, Illinois. The purpose of the inspection was to determine\nwhether Respondent had developed and implemented an integrity management program (IMP) as\nrequired in 31 95.452. At the conclusion of the inspection and during the exit interview, Respondent\nwas informed of probable violations. OPS issued to Respondent a Notice of Probable Violation,\nProposed Civil Penalty, Proposed Compliance Order and Notice of Amendment (Notice CPF#5-\n2003-503 1), alleging various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195. Respondent responded to the Notice\nby letter dated February 5,2004. Respondent did not contest the allegations of violation but offered\ninformation to explain the allegations and provided information concerning the corrective actions it\nhad taken.\nAs a result, on May 16,2005, the Associate Administrator for OPS issued a Final Order (CPF No. 5-\n2003-503 1) finding Respondent committed violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and assessed a civil\npenalty in the amount of $1 5,500. The relevant findings in the Final Order are as follows: 1) Failure\nto have procedures that include discovery requirements and failure to schedule remediation within\n180 days of discovery of the condition; 2) Failure to have contract language that requires ILI reports\nbe received from the vendor in a time frame that will permit the discovery of anomalies within 180\ndays; and 3) Four instances in which the interval between the assessment and Respondent's\ndiscovery exceed 180 days prescribed in the IM rules. All of these items from (CPF No. 5-2003-\n5031) demonstrate the OPS inspection teams' concerns about Respondent's practice of declaring\n\"discovery\" after completion of both tool runs.\nRespondent petitions that if in fact CPF No. 5-2003-5031 is being used as evidence of prior\nviolations of 49 C.F.R § 195.452(h)(2), it was not formally notified of PHMSA's ruling until it\nreceived the May 16,2005 Final Order which wa","truncated":true,"body_characters":42545}