{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320125029","title":"ST LOUIS PIPELINE OPERATING LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-12-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(i)(2), 195.452(j)(2), 195.452(j)(3), 195.452(k).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320125029.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320125029.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320125029","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320125029","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ST LOUIS PIPELINE OPERATING LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(i)(2),  195.452(j)(2),  195.452(j)(3),  195.452(k). The case was opened on 2012-12-28 and is reported as closed as of 2017-05-11. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320125029_Closure Letter_05112017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125029/320125029_Closure%20Letter_05112017.pdf\n\n320125029_Closure Letter_05112017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125029/320125029_Closure%20Letter_05112017_text.pdf\n\n320125029_Final Order_10302013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125029/320125029_Final%20Order_10302013.pdf\n\n320125029_Final Order_10302013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125029/320125029_Final%20Order_10302013_text.pdf\n\n320125029_NOPV PCO_12282012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125029/320125029_NOPV%20PCO_12282012.pdf\n\n320125029_NOPV PCO_12282012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125029/320125029_NOPV%20PCO_12282012_text.pdf\n\n320125029_Operator Response to Notice_08282014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320125029/320125029_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_08282014.pdf\n\n320125029_Closure Letter_05112017_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMay 11, 2017\nMr. Robert Rose\nPresident\nSt. Louis Pipeline Company\nP.O. Box 35236\nSarasota, FL 34242\nCPF 3-2012-5029\nDear Mr. Rose:\nOn October 30 2013, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to St. Louis Pipeline Company a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order\nincluded a Compliance Order. Based on our review of the documentation you provided, it has\nbeen determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAllan C. Beshore\nDirector, Central Region, OPS\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n320125029_Final Order_10302013_text.pdf\n\nOCTOBER 30, 2013\nMr. Robert Rose\nPresident\nSt. Louis Pipeline Company\nP.O. Box 35236\nSarasota, FL 34242\nRe: CPF No. 3-2012-5029\nDear Mr. Rose:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and specifies actions that need to be taken by St. Louis Pipeline Company to comply\nwith the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been\ncompleted, as determined by the Director, Central Region, this enforcement action will be\nclosed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing,\nor 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: Ms. Linda Daugherty, Central Region Director, 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)\nSt. Louis Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 3-2012-5029\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn October 3-5, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of St. Louis Pipeline\nCompany (SLPC or Respondent) in St. Louis, MO. SLPC operates a 22.5 mile pipeline that\ntransports jet fuel from Hartford, IL to Lambert Field in St. Louis, MO.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated December 28, 20121, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance\nOrder (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that SLPC\nviolated 49 C.F.R. §195.452 and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to\ncorrect 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 SLPC’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 first mailed to Respondent on December 28, 2012, by first class mail, and again by\ncertified mail (UPS Reference No. 2945G42SLID) on June 10, 2013, and was received by\nRespondent on June 12, 2013, as shown by the return receipt on file with PHMSA. To date,\nRespondent has never acknowledged or responded to the Notice. Under such circumstances, I\nfind it reasonable and appropriate to enter this Final Order without further proceedings.2\n1 After receiving no response from SLPC, the Central Region also forwarded the Notice of Probable Violation and\nProposed Compliance Order to addresses in Sarasota, FL and Hartford, IL, on June 10, 2013.\n2 In the Matter of Tampa Pipeline Corporation, Final Order (CPF No. 2-2008-6002) (April 26, 2010), 2010 WL\n6531627, (D.O.T.), August 27, 2010; See also, In the Matter of Tampa Bay Pipeline Corporation, Final Order (CPF\nNo. 2-2005-6012) (Dec. 1, 2006), 2008 WL 902910 (D.O.T.), March 31, 2008. PHMSA final orders are generally\naccessible on the agency’s website, available at http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/Actions.\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nSLPC did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(2), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) ….\n(i) What preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take to\nprotect the high consequence area?—(1) General requirements….\n(2) Risk analysis criteria. In identifying the need for additional\npreventive and mitigative measures, an operator must evaluate the\nlikelihood of a pipeline release occurring and how a release could affect\nthe high consequence area. This determination must consider all relevant\nrisk factors, including, but not limited to:\n(i) Terrain surrounding the pipeline segment, including drainage\nsystems such as small streams and other smaller waterways that could act\nas a conduit to the high consequence area;\n(ii) Elevation profile;\n(iii) Characteristics of the product transported;\n(iv) Amount of product that could be released;\n(v) Possibility of a spillage in a farm field following the drain tile into\na waterway;\n(vi) Ditches along side a roadway the pipeline crosses;\n(vii) ….\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(2) by failing to take\npreventive and mitigative measures to protect a High Consequence Area (HCA), including\nevaluating the likelihood of a pipeline release and how such a release could affect the HCA.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that SLPC failed to properly consider the operational status of\nthe pipeline (e.g. active or idle) when calculating potential release volumes. For an operating\npipeline, SLPC failed to incorporate into its release volume calculations: topography, line\nprofiles, and the time required to close manual valves. For a static pipeline, SLPC failed to\nconsider that isolation valves would not be closed if the pipeline was idle. In addition,\nRespondent’s calculations did not include the time necessary to respond to a release or close\nvalves. Last, SLPC failed to evaluate both the overland and water transport of potential spill\nmaterials. Respondent failed to determine the overland transport direction of the final estimated\nspill volumes in order to assess ditch diversions, storm sewer access points, additional effect on\nHCA areas, or the effect of river velocities on personnel response time.\nRespondent 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(i)(2) by failing to take certain measures to protect an HCA, including\nevaluating the likelihood of a pipeline release and its potential effect on an HCA.\n\n\n\n3\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(2), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) ….\n(j) What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to\nmaintain a pipeline’s integrity?—(1) General. After completing the\nbaseline integrity assessment, an operator must continue to assess the line\npipe at specified intervals and periodically evaluate the integrity of each\npipeline segment that could affect a high consequence area.\n(2) Evaluation. An operator must conduct a periodic evaluation as\nfrequently as needed to assure pipeline integrity. An operator must base\nthe frequency of evaluation on risk factors specific to its pipeline,\nincluding the factors specified in paragraph (e) of this section. The\nevaluation must consider the results of the baseline and periodic integrity\nassessments, information analysis (paragraph (g) of this section), and\ndecisions about remediation, and preventive and mitigative actions\n(paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(2) by failing to conduct a\nperiodic evaluation as frequently as needed to assure pipeline integrity. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that SLPC failed to evaluate its pipeline for corrosion, third party damage, and other risk\nfactors. Having elected hydrostatic testing as its sole assessment method, Respondent failed to\ntake further steps to assure pipeline integrity.\nRespondent 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(j)(2) by failing to conduct periodic evaluations as frequently as needed to\nassure pipeline integrity.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(3), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) ….\n(j) What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to\nmaintain a pipeline’s integrity?\n(1) ….\n(3) Assessment intervals. An operator must establish five-year\nintervals, not to exceed 68 months, for continually assessing the line\npipe’s integrity. An operator must base the assessment intervals on the\nrisk the line pipe poses to the high consequence area to determine the\npriority for assessing the pipeline segments. An operator must establish\nthe assessment intervals based on the factors specified in paragraph (e) of\nthis section, the analysis of the results from the last integrity assessment,\nand the information analysis required by paragraph (g) of this section.\n\n\n\n4\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(3) by failing to establish\nfive-year intervals, not to exceed 68 months, for continually assessing the line pipe’s integrity.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that SLPC failed to complete an assessment of two different\nsections of its pipeline within the regulatory time period. Respondent assessed one portion of the\npipeline on November 13, 2004 and completed the second portion on May 12, 2005. SLPC next\nreassessed both segments on July 13, 2011, which extended the assessment intervals to 78\nmonths and 72 months, respectively.\nRespondent 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(j)(3) by failing to establish five-year intervals, not to exceed 68 months, for\ncontinually assessing the line pipe’s integrity.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(k), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(k) What methods to measure program effectiveness must be used? An\noperator’s program must include methods to measure whether the program\nis effective in assessing and evaluating the integrity of each pipeline\nsegment and in protecting the high consequence areas. See Appendix C of\nthis part for guidance on methods that can be used to evaluate a program’s\neffectiveness.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(k) by failing to have a program\nincluding methodology to measure the effectiveness in assessing and evaluating the integrity of\neach pipeline segment and in protecting HCAs. Specifically, the Notice alleged that SLPC failed\nto develop any methods to measure the effectiveness of its program. PHMSA inspectors\nquestioned SLPC personnel, Mr. Robert Wood, Regional Director, and Mr. Rick Stubblefield,\nTerminal Supervisor, on why SLPC failed to measure the effectiveness of their integrity\nmanagement program (IMP). Both responded that SLPC considered its hydrotest as sufficient\nevidence that its program was effective.3\nRespondent 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(k) by failing to include in its program a methodology for measuring\nwhether its program is effective in assessing and evaluating the integrity of each pipeline\nsegment and in protecting the HCAs.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.452(i)(2), 195.452(j)(2), 195.452(j)(3) and 195.452(k),\n3 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (December 12, 2012) (on file with PHMSA), at 21.\n\n\n\n5\nrespectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of\nhazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to\nensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(i)(2), (Item 1), Respondent must\ncalculate release volumes for each operational scenario for each pipeline segment.\nUsing the calculated worst case scenario for each segment, apply the over land\nspread, water transport, or combination to identify potentially affected HCAs. Then,\nusing this information, evaluate whether response procedures should be modified in\norder to mitigate potential consequences and document any newly identified potential\nHCAs.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(j)(2) (Item 2), Respondent must\nperform evaluations to address threats on its pipeline and propose additional\npreventive and mitigative measures.\n3. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(j)(3) (Item 3), Respondent must\ndevelop procedures to assure that it does not exceed assessment intervals.\nRespondent must also develop procedures for notifying PHMSA prior to exceeding\nthe maximum assessment intervals.\n4. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(k) (Item 4), Respondent must develop\nprocedures to measure program effectiveness. Once developed, SLPC must apply\nthese metrics to determine if additional actions should be taken to ensure the integrity\nof the applicable pipeline segments.\n5. SLPC must submit a plan, including a work schedule, to the Director for approval\nwithin 30 days of receipt of the Final Order.\n6. Additionally, Respondent should maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the\ntotal to the Director. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories:\n1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and\nanalyses; and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions, and other changes\nto 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 $200,000 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.\n\n\n\n6\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. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay, the 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":17558}