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

party submissionOfficial PDF320135004_Operator_Response_to_Notice_and_Request_for_Hearing_03222013.pdf#

320135004_Closure Letter_11152017_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED November 15, 2017 Gerald Maret President BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. MC 9S-169 30 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 CPF 3-2013-5004 Dear Mr. Maret: On September 25, 2015, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued to BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order. Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Allan C. Beshore Director, Central Region, OPS Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration#

320135004_NOPV PCP PCO_02152013_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY and PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED February 15, 2013 Mr. Steve Pankhurst President BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. 150 West Warrenville Road Naperville, Illinois 60563 CPF 3-2013-5004 Dear Mr. Pankhurst: Between August 2-December 10, 2010, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety, and Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. (BP) records and facilities for Operations and Maintenance, Operator Qualification, Public Awareness, Damage Prevention and Integrity Management through an Integrated Inspection process in BP’s offices and field locations in Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The systems included in the inspection were BP Pipeline (North America) Inc., Olympic Pipeline, Amoco Pipeline, BP USFO/Logistics, Main Pass Oil Gathering, BP Oil Pipeline, Tri-States NGL Pipeline and Black Lake Pipe Line. As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violation(s) related to the Operations and Maintenance Program (Items 1-2) are:#

320135004_NOPV PCP PCO_02152013_text.pdf, page 21. §195.420 Valve maintenance. (b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7 ½ months, but at least twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that it is functioning properly. BP did not inspect each mainline valve at least twice each calendar year to determine they were functioning properly. a. b. c. A mainline block valve on the Sugar Creek to Council Bluffs line was not inspected at least twice in the calendar year of 2007. Mainline Block Valve BV#27157 - (EQNUM #35641) was not inspected in the first half of 2007. In 2008, two (2) mainline block valves on the Sugar Creek to Council Bluffs line and three (3) mainline block valves on different Ohio pipeline segments were not inspected at least twice in the calendar year of 2008. Mainline Block Valves BV#5455 – (EQNUM #302178) and BV#27158 – (EQNUM #35369) were not inspected in the second half of 2008. Mainline Block Valves WT6 REFY Spool 696+89 – (EQNUM #33657) and WT6 RFY Spool 697+03 – (EQNUM #33656) were not inspected the last half of 2007, all of 2008, and the first half of 2009. Mainline Block Valve Dock Heavy Oil Scraper Trap – (EQNUM #32830) was not inspected in last half of 2008 and all of 2009. In 2009, the following three (3) mainline valves: 0106 Inbound Colonial PL HDR, 2704 12-inch Yellow HDR Underground, and 2706 12-inch Buckeye HDR Underground were not inspected at least twice in the calendar year In 2009 the following three (3) mainline valves: 0106 Inbound Colonial PL HDR, 2704 12-inch Yellow HDR Underground, and 2706 12-inch Buckeye HDR Underground were not inspected at least twice in the calendar year to determine they were functioning properly. The first inspection cycle of mainline valve inspections performed in 2009 was completed on June 11 & 12, 2009, and the second inspection cycle of mainline valve inspections was completed on January 6 & 7, 2010, missing the requirement of twice each calendar year (2009). 2. §195.432 Breakout tanks. (b) Each operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according to section 4 of API Standard 653. 2#

320135004_NOPV PCP PCO_02152013_text.pdf, page 3BP did not inspect each breakout tank for physical integrity according to API Standard 653, which requires a monthly inspection. On the Olympic Pipeline System, three (3) breakout tanks were missed for monthly inspections. The DOT Utility/Surge Relief Tank – (EQNUM #17712) was not inspected for February and April of 2007. The DOT Tank #202 – (EQNUM #18990) was not inspected February 2007. The DOT Renton Utility Tank #116 – (EQNUM #18405) was not inspected February 2007. The items inspected and the probable violation(s) related to the Integrity Management Program (Items 3-6) are: 3. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas. (h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues? (1) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to address all anomalous conditions the operator discovers through the integrity assessment or information analysis. In addressing all conditions, an operator must evaluate all anomalous conditions and remediate those that could reduce a pipeline’s integrity. An operator must be able to demonstrate that the remediation of the condition will ensure the condition is unlikely to pose a threat to the long-term integrity of the pipeline. An operator must comply with § 195.422 when making a repair. BP did not take prompt action to address all anomalous conditions it discovered through information analysis. As part of its integrity management program, BP identified close interval surveys (CIS) to be conducted for certain HCAs including Black Lake Station to Toro Station, Toro Station to Hardin Station, and Hardin Station to Mt. Belvieu, Texas. The CIS conducted from Hardin Station to Mt. Belvieu, Texas, identified several locations where the IR-Off readings were outside of established criteria and the findings were discovered during the 2005 surveys. BP procedures did not require investigations of those CIS findings until December 31, 2010. PHMSA’s review of the data on August 28, 2010, showed the operator had not completed the investigations. The rule requires that an operator promptly “address all anomalous conditions the operator discovers through the integrity assessment or information analysis.” Exceeding four years to address findings resulting from information analysis is not prompt action. 3#

320135004_NOPV PCP PCO_02152013_text.pdf, page 44. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas. (h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues? (4) Special requirements for scheduling remediation. (iv) Other conditions. In addition to the conditions listed in paragraphs (h)(4)(i) - (iii) of this section, an operator must evaluate any condition identified by an integrity assessment or information analysis that could impair the integrity of the pipeline, and as appropriate, schedule the condition for remediation. Appendix C contains guidance concerning other conditions that an operator should evaluate. BP did not evaluate a condition identified by an integrity assessment that could impair the integrity of the pipeline. BP conducted an inline inspection (ILI) of its Endymion Pipeline in January of 2010. By June of 2010, the operator had received the report from the ILI vendor and determined that the run was unacceptable. On June 30, 2010, the operator then submitted to PHMSA a notification to extend the assessment interval due to the inadequate tool run, stating a subsequent MFL tool would be re-run later in 2010. On August 16, 2010, the operator attempted to retract its notification of June 30, 2011, indicating the tool run was of acceptable quality. During the PHMSA inspection, the results of the run were reviewed and BP was asked about the internal corrosion indication reported by the January 2010 ILI run. The indication measured 39.3 inches in an axial direction and 26.9 inches in a circumferential direction and was reported to be 11% in depth, which is characteristic of an “anomaly over a large area” that should be evaluated. The operator was asked about its follow-up actions regarding the indication and BP formally responded on January 7, 2011. There appears to have been no formal process for reviewing and addressing this anomaly or actions to mitigate the potential for internal corrosion. The operator’s IM procedure “Remedial Actions Procedure #P-195.452.f4” requires in section “1.3 Remedial Actions Tracking and Maintenance” that “each HCA condition that is discovered either through ILI assessment or the normal course of pipeline operations to assure timely remedial action implementation.” At the time of PHMSA’s inspection, BP could not document any actions were taken to address the indication of potential internal corrosion over a large area. BP eventually inspected the pipe at the location to verify this condition did not require repair; although not in a timely manner. 5. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas. (j) What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to maintain a pipeline's integrity? (1) General. After completing the baseline integrity assessment, an operator must continue to assess the line pipe at specified intervals and periodically evaluate the integrity of each pipeline segment that could affect a high consequence area. 4#

320135004_NOPV PCP PCO_02152013_text.pdf, page 56. a) b) c) d) BP could not demonstrate that adequate periodic evaluations of pipeline integrity were performed because its procedure “Continual Evaluation and Assessment Procedure #P-195-452.f5” was vague and non-specific. It does not address in detail the evaluation requirements of §195.452(j)(2) such as risk factors in paragraph (e) which includes, but is not limited to: results of previous integrity assessments, leak history, repair history, cathodic protection history, product transported, operating stress level, existing or projected activities in the area, local environmental factors, geo-technical hazards, etc. Although the operator did perform some paragraph (g) information analysis, the actual analysis for each HCA was vague and poorly documented. Effects of preventive and mitigative actions [paragraphs (h) and (i)] were not considered. BP could not demonstrate that adequate continual assessments were identified and performed because BP’s procedure did not sufficiently address the re- assessments of Low Frequency ERW and Lap Welded longitudinal seam pipe and ensure assessments are completed. Where pipelines are identified as susceptible to seam failure for these types of pipe, BP allowed re-assessments intervals longer than five years. BP could not demonstrate that their re-assessment methods and periodic evaluations were adequate to address interactive threats because BP’s procedure did not address a process to assess, evaluate and mitigate seam threats which are also susceptible to external corrosion in certain pipe. BP had pre-determined that assessment intervals could not be less than three years as described in the procedure. The re-assessment intervals should be based on contemporaneous information that is gathered through ongoing periodic evaluation, assessments, information analysis, and other data. BP’s integrity management program excluded the potential for shorter assessment intervals. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas. j) What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to maintain a pipeline's integrity? (2) Evaluation. An operator must conduct a periodic evaluation as frequently as needed to assure pipeline integrity. An operator must base the frequency of evaluation on risk factors specific to its pipeline, including the factors specified in paragraph (e) of this section. The evaluation must consider the results of the baseline and periodic integrity assessments, information analysis (paragraph (g) of this section), and decisions about remediation, and preventive and mitigative actions (paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section). 5#

320135004_NOPV PCP PCO_02152013_text.pdf, page 6BP did not complete periodic evaluations to assure pipeline integrity on all of its pipelines, including facilities. BP identified 109 facilities in HCAs and provided a spreadsheet which indicated the assessment and evaluation for each of the facilities, which included dates of inspection and the inspection types. At the time of PHMSA’s inspection, BP had not documented that the FIMP/FIP (Facility Integrity Management Program/Facility Implementation Plan) evaluations had been started on 47 of their facilities; consequently, there was no associated documentation to indicate that all necessary inspections, assessments, and evaluations had been completed to assure pipeline integrity. Proposed Civil Penalty Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $100,000 as follows: Item number PENALTY #6 $100,000 Warning Items With respect to items 1 and 2, we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these items. Be advised that failure to do so may result in BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. being subject to additional enforcement action. Proposed Compliance Order With respect to items 3-6 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice. Response to this Notice Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive6#

320135004_NOPV PCP PCO_02152013_text.pdf, page 7material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order. In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2013-5004 and for each document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible. Sincerely, David Barrett Director, Central Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Enclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings 7#

320135004_NOPV PCP PCO_02152013_text.pdf, page 8PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. (BP) with the pipeline safety regulations: 1. 2. 3. 4. In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to prompt action to address all anomalous conditions, BP shall review and revise all procedures that allow timing of actions longer than one year, unless a detailed justification is provided documenting the rationale for a longer interval. BP must complete the review and revisions within 30 days of the receipt of the Final Order and submit a report documenting the procedures reviewed and revisions made per Item #9 of this Compliance Order. In regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to evaluation of any condition identified by an integrity assessment, BP must revise its “Remedial Actions Procedure” to ensure that all future assessments are properly evaluated, appropriate actions are taken in a timely fashion, and all activities are clearly documented. BP must review all current assessments and ensure the findings are properly evaluated, appropriate actions are being taken, and all activities are documented. BP must complete the requirements outlined within 120 days of receipt of the Final Order, and submit a report documenting the review and follow-up actions taken per Item #9 of this Compliance Order. In regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to continual process of evaluation and assessment to maintain pipeline integrity, BP shall fully develop its “Continual Evaluation and Assessment Procedure” and include all the elements required in paragraph (e) which include but are not limited to results of previous integrity assessments, leak history, repair history, cathodic protection history, product transported, operating stress level, existing or projected activities in the area, local environmental factors, geo-technical hazards, etc. BP must complete the requirements outlined within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order and submit the procedures per Item #9 of this Compliance Order. In regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to continual process of evaluation and assessment to maintain pipeline integrity, BP shall revise its procedures involving re-assessments of Low Frequency ERW and Lap Welded longitudinal seam pipe and ensure assessments are completed. In addition, when pipelines are susceptible to threats related to these types of pipe, BP must ensure that reassessments are no longer than every five (5) years. BP must complete the requirements outlined within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order and submit the procedures per Item #9 of this Compliance Order. 8#

320135004_NOPV PCP PCO_02152013_text.pdf, page 95. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. In regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to continual process of evaluation and assessment to maintain pipeline integrity, BP shall revise its procedure to assess and mitigate against seam threats which are also susceptible to external corrosion. BP must complete the requirements outlined within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order and submit its procedures per Item #9 of this Compliance Order. In regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to continual process of evaluation and assessment to maintain pipeline integrity, BP shall revise its procedure on reassessment methods and intervals to include the potential for assessments less than three (3) years, which is currently excluded from the operator’s program. BP must complete the requirements outlined within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order and submit its procedures per Item #9 of this Compliance Order. In regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to continual process of evaluation and assessment to maintain pipeline integrity, BP shall develop a plan to review the pipelines in the integrity management program after its procedures have been revised (per Items 3-6 of this Compliance Order). BP shall re-evaluate the integrity of each pipeline segment, and modify assessment methods and schedules where appropriate. BP must complete the requirements outlined within 150 days of receipt of the Final Order and submit the plan and results of the re-evaluation per Item #9 of this Compliance Order. In regard to Item Number 6 of the Notice pertaining to the failure to evaluate all of its facilities located in HCAs, BP shall revise its procedures to ensure future facilities will be properly evaluated. BP shall complete all of its facility assessments and implement any required actions as soon as practicable. Within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order, submit a plan with a list of all current facilities and the timing for assessment and associated actions for approval from the Regional Director. BP must complete the assessments per the approved plan and submit quarterly reports until completion of the plan per Item #9 of this Compliance Order. All documentation demonstrating compliance with each of the items outlined in this order must be submitted to David Barrett, Director, Central Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 901 Locust Street, Kansas City, MO 64106, for review and acceptance within 30 days after their completion. It is requested that BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to David Barrett, Director, Central Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure. 9#

320135004_Final Order_09252015_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFSeptember 25, 2015 Mr. Donald W. Porter President BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. 150 West Warrenville Road Naperville, IL 60563 Re: CPF No. 3-2013-5004 Dear Mr. Porter: Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws certain allegations of violation, makes other findings of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $100,000, and specifies actions that need to be taken by BP Pipelines (North America) Inc., to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of the full penalty amount, by wire transfer, dated December 16, 2014. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director, Central Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Jeffrey D. Wiese Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Mr. Allan Beshore, Director, Central Region, OPS Mr. David O. Barnes, Manager, DOT Compliance, BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED#

320135004_Final Order_09252015_text.pdf, page 2U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 ____________________________________ ) In the Matter of ) ) BP Pipelines (North America) Inc., ) CPF No. 3-2013-5004 ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) FINAL ORDER Between August 2 and December 10, 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), the Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety, and the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission inspected BP Pipelines (North America) Inc.’s (BP or Respondent) facilities and records for Operations and Maintenance, Operator Qualification, Public Awareness, Damage Prevention, and Integrity Management in BP’s offices and field locations in Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The BP systems included in the inspection were Olympic Pipeline, Amoco Pipeline, BP USFO/Logistics, Main Pass Oil Gathering, BP Oil Pipeline, Tri-States NGL Pipeline, and Black Lake Pipe Line. BP operates numerous large hazardous liquid pipeline systems in the U.S., totaling approximately 2,983 miles of pipe.1 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated February 15, 2013, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included warning items pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that BP had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and assessing a civil penalty of $100,000 for one of the alleged violations. The Notice also ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct four of the alleged violations. The warning items required no further action, but warned the operator to correct the probable violations or face future possible enforcement action. BP responded to the Notice by letter dated March 22, 2013 (Response), as supplemented by letter dated April 2, 2014 (Supplemental Response). The company did not contest one of the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $100,000, as provided in 49 C.F.R. § 190.227. Payment of the penalty serves to close that item with prejudice to Respondent. BP did contest the allegations in Notice Items 4 and 5, offered additional information in response to the Notice, requested that the proposed compliance order be modified, and reserved its right to a 1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report, (Feb. 15, 2013) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.#

320135004_Final Order_09252015_text.pdf, page 3CPF No. 3-2013-5004 Page 2 hearing. By letter dated April 7, 2014, Respondent withdrew its request for a hearing and thereby authorized the entry of this Final Order without further notice. FINDINGS OF VIOLATION The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows: Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(1), which states: § 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.2 (a) … (h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?— (1) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to address all anomalous conditions the operator discovers through the integrity assessment or information analysis. In addressing all conditions, an operator must evaluate all anomalous conditions and remediate those that could reduce a pipeline's integrity. An operator must be able to demonstrate that the remediation of the condition will ensure the condition is unlikely to pose a threat to the long-term integrity of the pipeline. An operator must comply with §195.422 when making a repair. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(1) by failing to take prompt action to address all anomalous conditions the company had discovered through information analysis. Specifically, the Notice alleged that BP did not address deficiencies identified in a 2005 close interval survey (CIS) conducted on the Hardin Station to Mt. Belvieu, Texas segment of the Black Lake Pipeline until 2010. In its Response, BP stated that it had revised its CIS procedures to clarify that areas requiring mitigation were properly identified and actions put in place to correct identified deficiencies within one year.3 BP further explained that in certain circumstances, mitigation activities could extend beyond one year if activities such as extensive re-coating, rectifier installation, or pipe replacement were involved. Finally, BP expressed the view that the proposed compliance order was broad enough to arguably include not just BP’s CIS procedures but all of BP’s procedures, and requested that the order be narrowed. Under the cited regulation, BP was required to take prompt action and Respondent did not dispute that action was not taken until approximately four years after the CIS survey in question. We recognize BP ultimately took action, including amending its procedures to correct the alleged violation. Such action, however, does not negate the period of non-compliance. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. 2 For purposes of 49 C.F.R. § 452, the term “High Consequence Area” or “HCA” covers commercially navigable waterways, high population areas, other populated areas, and unusually sensitive areas. See 49 C.F.R. § 195.450. 3 Supplemental Response, Attachment 1 at 1.#

320135004_Final Order_09252015_text.pdf, page 4CPF No. 3-2013-5004 Page 3 § 195.452(h)(1) by failing to take prompt action to address all anomalous conditions it discovered through information analysis. The scope of the proposed compliance order will be addressed in the Compliance Order section below. Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(iv), which states: § 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas. (a) … (h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues? (1) … (4) Special requirements for scheduling remediation - (i) … (iv) Other conditions. In addition to the conditions listed in paragraphs (h)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section, an operator must evaluate any condition identified by an integrity assessment or information analysis that could impair the integrity of the pipeline, and as appropriate, schedule the condition for remediation. Appendix C of this part contains guidance concerning other conditions that an operator should evaluate. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(iv) by failing to evaluate a condition identified by an integrity assessment and that could impair the integrity of a pipeline. Specifically, the Notice alleged that BP failed to evaluate an anomaly at a specified location that, based on 2010 in-line inspection (ILI) results, appeared to be of sufficient magnitude to impair the integrity of the pipeline. In its Response, BP provided information showing that it did perform a field inspection and evaluation of the specified anomaly in a timely manner following receipt of the tool vendor’s report. Specifically, the field inspection was performed in November 2010 and determined that the majority of the feature involved depths of less than 2%, equating to 1/100 of an inch in 0.661” wall pipe. Moreover, no part of the feature exceeded the 9% depth specification tolerance for newly manufactured pipe.4 Based on the severity of this feature, as reported by the ILI vendor, I do not believe that the time period between BP’s receipt of the vendor’s report and the field inspection was inappropriate. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that BP was not out of compliance with 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(iv) and therefore order that Item 4 and the associated provision in the Proposed Compliance Order be withdrawn. Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(1), which states: § 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas. 4 Response, Attachment 1 at 4.#

320135004_Final Order_09252015_text.pdf, page 5CPF No. 3-2013-5004 Page 4 (a) … (j) What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to maintain a pipeline's integrity?— (1) General. After completing the baseline integrity assessment, an operator must continue to assess the line pipe at specified intervals and periodically evaluate the integrity of each pipeline segment that could affect a high consequence area. (2) Evaluation. An operator must conduct a periodic evaluation as frequently as needed to assure pipeline integrity. An operator must base the frequency of evaluation on risk factors specific to its pipeline, including the factors specified in paragraph (e) of this section. The evaluation must consider the results of the baseline and periodic integrity assessments, information analysis (paragraph (g) of this section), and decisions about remediation, and preventive and mitigative actions (paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section). The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(1) by failing to continue assessing each pipe segment at specified intervals and periodically evaluating the integrity of each segment that could affect a High Consequence Area. Specifically, Sub-items (a)-(d) in Item 5 alleged that BP violated the regulation by failing to: (a) have and implement a process for continual assessments that included all relevant factors, including, among other things, previous integrity assessment results, leak history, repair history, cathodic protection history, product transported, and operating stress level; (b) address low frequency electric resistance welded (ERW) pipe and lap welded pipe susceptible to seam failures and ensure that these types of pipe be reassessed within five years;5 (c) address interactive threats; and (d) properly establish intervals between assessments. In its Response, BP did not contest Sub-items (a), (c), or (d) and provided information concerning the actions it had taken to correct these items. With respect to Sub-item (b), BP explained that its integrity management program did fully address the reassessment of low frequency ERW and lap welded pipe. Specifically, BP demonstrated that its procedures were consistent with PHMSA’s accepted technical report, OPS TT05 – Low Frequency ERW and Lap Welded Longitudinal Seam Evaluation Report, and provided for appropriate reassessment intervals for these types of pipe and appropriate notification for any intervals exceeding five 6 years. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that PHMSA has not provided sufficient evidence to conclude that BP had reassessed pipe at intervals longer than the five-year period specified in the regulation; I therefore order that Sub-item 5(b) and the associated provision in the Proposed Compliance Order be withdrawn. With respect to Sub-items (a), (c), and (d), I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(1) by failing to have and implement a process for continual assessments that included all relevant factors, addressed interactive threats, and properly established intervals between assessments. 5 Under 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j), operators must be able to justify and document reassessment intervals longer than five years. 6 Response, Attachment 1 at 5#

320135004_Final Order_09252015_text.pdf, page 6CPF No. 3-2013-5004 Page 5 Item 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(2), as quoted above, by failing to conduct periodic evaluations to assure pipeline integrity on all of its pipelines and facilities. Specifically, the Notice alleged that BP had not undertaken periodic evaluations on 47 of 109 covered facilities. In its Response, BP did not contest the allegation. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(2) by failing to conduct periodic evaluations to assure pipeline integrity on all of its pipelines and facilities. The findings of violation for Items 3, 5, and 6 will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent. ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.7 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $100,000 for the violation cited in Item 6 above. Item 6: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $100,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(2), for failing to conduct periodic evaluations to assure pipeline integrity on all of its pipelines and facilities. As noted above, BP paid the proposed penalty, which serves to close the case with prejudice as to this Item. I further find that the penalty amount proposed in the notice is warranted, considering the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation and Respondent’s culpability for the violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $100,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(2). In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for the Item cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $100,000, which amount has already been paid by Respondent. 7 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat. 1904, January 3, 2012, increased the civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to $200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.#

320135004_Final Order_09252015_text.pdf, page 7CPF No. 3-2013-5004 Page 6 COMPLIANCE ORDER The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the Notice for violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.452(h)(1), 195.452(h)(4)(iv), 195.452(j)(1), and 195.452(j)(2), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Item 4 and Sub-item 5(b) have been withdrawn, as have the proposed compliance terms associated with them. With respect to Items 3, 5(a), (c), (d), and 6, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations: 1. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(h)(1) (Item 3), within 30 days of receipt of this Order, Respondent must review and revise all procedures related to Close Interval Survey findings that allow timing of actions addressing anomalous conditions to extend longer than one year, unless a detailed written justification is provided documenting the rationale for a longer interval. BP must submit a report demonstrating completion of this item to the Director in accordance with Item 7 of this Compliance Order. 2. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(j)(1) (Item 5(a)), within 60 days following receipt of this Order, Respondent must complete the full development of its “Continual Evaluation and Assessment Procedure,” including all elements set forth in paragraph (e) which include but are not limited to previous integrity assessment results, leak history, repair history, cathodic protection history, product transported, operating stress level, existing or projected activities in the area, local environmental factors, geo-technical hazards, etc. BP must submit a report demonstrating completion of this item to the Director in accordance with Item 7 of this Compliance Order. 3. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(j)(1) (Item 5(c)), within 60 days following receipt of this Order, Respondent must revise its written procedures for assessing and mitigating against interactive threats, including seam threats that are also susceptible to external corrosion. BP must submit a report demonstrating completion of this item to the Director in accordance with Item 7 of this Compliance Order. 4. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(j)(1) (Item 5(d)), within 60 days following receipt of this Order, Respondent must revise its written procedures on reassessment methods and intervals to address the potential need to conduct assessments at intervals less than three years where warranted by the analysis. BP must submit a report demonstrating completion of this item to the Director in accordance with Item 7 of this Compliance Order. 5. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(j)(1) (Item 5), within 365 days#

320135004_Final Order_09252015_text.pdf, page 8CPF No. 3-2013-5004 Page 7 following receipt of this Order, Respondent must develop and implement a plan to review the pipelines in its integrity management program after its procedures have been revised per Items 1-4 of this Compliance Order. The plan must provide for the re-evaluation of the integrity of each covered pipeline segment and the modification of assessment methods and schedules where appropriate. BP must submit a report demonstrating completion of this item to the Director in accordance with Item 7 of this Compliance Order. 6. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(j)(2) (Item 6), within 60 days following receipt of this Order, Respondent must: (1) revise its procedures to ensure future facilities are properly evaluated and assessed in accordance with applicable regulatory timelines; and (2) develop and submit a plan, for prior approval of the Director, with a list of all current facilities that includes proposed timelines for conducting all needed assessments and associated actions to achieve compliance. BP must: (1) submit quarterly reports to the Director on the progress of carrying out the plan; and (2) submit a final report demonstrating completion of this item to the Director in accordance with Item 7 of this Compliance Order. 7. Within 30 days following the completion of each item in this Compliance Order, Respondent must submit documentation demonstrating the completion of each item to Allan Beshore, Director, Central Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 901 Locust Street, Kansas City, MO 64106 for review and acceptance. 8. It is requested, but not required, that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. Costs should be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies, and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with replacements, additions, and other physical changes to pipeline facilities and infrastructure. The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an extension. Failure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not to exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States. WARNING ITEMS With respect to Items 1 and 2, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to be warning items. The warning(s) were for:#

320135004_Final Order_09252015_text.pdf, page 9CPF No. 3-2013-5004 Page 8 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect certain mainline valves within the required interval to determine that they are functioning properly; and 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to conduct monthly inspections of the physical integrity of certain breakout tanks in accordance with API Standard 653. BP presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to address the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action. Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent has a right to submit a petition for reconsideration of this Final Order. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, the terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. ___________________________________ __________________________ Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#