# BP OIL PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 420025015
- **title:** BP OIL PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2002-09-05
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(c)(7), 195.403(a)(3), 195.406(b).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420025015.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420025015.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420025015
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420025015
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving BP OIL PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(c)(7),  195.403(a)(3),  195.406(b). The case was opened on 2002-09-05 and is reported as closed as of 2005-08-12. Proposed civil penalty: $35,000. Assessed civil penalty: $35,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

420025015_final order_08242004.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420025015/420025015_final%20order_08242004.pdf

420025015_final order_08242004.pdf

AUG 2 4 ? C C l
Mr. Lee Edwards
President
BP Pipelines North America, Inc.
801 Warrenvillc Road
Lislc, IL 60532
Re: CPF No. 4-2002-501 5
Dear Mr. Edwards:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the
above-referenced casc. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $35,000. The
penalty payment tcrrns are set forth in the Final Ordcr. This enforcement action closes automalically
upon paymcnt. Your receipt of the Final Ordcr constitutes service ofthat document under 49 C.F.R.
Ej 190.5.
Sincerely,
James Reynolds
Pipeline Compliance Registry
Office of Pipeline Safety
Enclosure 1



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PLPELlNE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, DC 20590
- -.. -
In the Matter of
~)
I 1
BP Pipelines North America, Inc.
)
:I
Respondent.
CPF No. 4-2002-50 15
FINAL ORDER
On November 10. 2000, pursuant to 49 I1.S.C. 3 601 17. a representative of the Office of Pipeline
Safety (OPS) initiated an investigation of Respondent's report of an accidcnt occumng around
milepost 9 on its 8-inch Post. Texas to Monroe, Texas pipeline system. As a result of the
investigation, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS, issued to Respondcnt, by letter dated September
5, 2002, a Notice of Probablc Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Noticc). In accordance wit11
49 C.F.R. ij 190.207, thc Notice proposed finding that Respondent had violatcd 49 C.F.R.
$ 4 195.403(a)(3) and l95.406(b), and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $35,000 for the alleged
violations. The Notice also warned Respondent to take appropriatc corrcctive action.
Respondent responded to the Notice by an undated letter received October 1 1. 2002 (Response).
Respondent did not contest the allegations of violation. Respondent did not rcqucst a hearing, and
therefore has waived its right to one.
In its Response, Respondent stated that il was concerned over OPS utili7ing Respondent's "Root
Cause Failure Analysis" (RCFA) report to support the allegations of\-iolation. OPS requested the
RCFA report from Respondent as part of a routine investigation of Respondent's accident rcport and
has authority to do so under 49 C1.S.C. 3 601 17. Requests for infom~ation should not have a
"chilling effect," as Respondent suggested, \\>here operators have a statutory or rc_culaton duty to
fully disclose information or to provide information upon OPS's rcqucst, such as in the casc of a
hazardous liquid accident. Thus, ~ f h i l c Respondent is encouraged to discuss further evidentiary
concerns with OPS, it is proper for OPS to use Respondent's RCFA report or similar materials for
enforccmcnt purposes.
Fb'DlhrGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, Respondent did not contest the alleged violations in the Notice. ilccordingly. I find
that Respondent violated the following sections of49 C.F.R. P a l 195, as more fullydescrihed in the
Noticc:



49 C.F.R. fj 195.403(a)(3) -- failing to establish and conduct a continuing training program 1
for its Post to Monroe pipelinc system that was adequate to instruct personnel to recognize I
conditions that are likely to causc cmcrgencies, to predict conscqucnces of malfunctions, !
failures, or spills, and to take appropriate corrective action; and
49 C.F.R. 1 195.40h(h) -- failing to prcvent the pressure of the Post to Monroe pipeline,
system from exceeding 110% of its maximum operating pressure (MOP) of 506 psi, as I
~neasured at mile post 8-96, on Novcmber 9, 2000. I
These findings of vio lation wi 1 l 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 a civil pcnalty not to exceed 9100,000 pcr
violation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of S1,000,000 for any related series of
violations.
49 U.S.C. fi 60122 and 49 C.F.R. 4 190.225 require that, in determining the 'mount of the civil
penally, I consider the followi~lg criteria: naturc, circurnstanccs, and gravity of the violation, degree
of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offcnscs, Respondent's ability to pay the
penalty, good faith by Rcspondcnt in attempting to achieve compliance, the cffcct on Respondent's
ability to continue in business, and such other malters as justice may rcquirc.
Thc Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $33,000 for violarion of 54 195.403(a)(3) and
195.406(b).
I havc determined that Respondent has no financial circumstances that would prevent it from paying)
the assessed pcnalty amounts and that Respondent's ability to continue in business will not be
s i p i ficantly affec ted.
The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. 5 195.493(a)(3). An
operator's employees may make the difference benvccn preventing or cxaccrhating thc risks posed
by abnormal operating conditions. Failure to provide adequate continuing training to personnel
decreases thc likclihood of preventing risks to people, property. and the environment in abnonllal
operating conditions. Therefore, I assess a civil penalty of S 10.000.
The Notice proposed a civil pcnaltyof$25.000 for violation of49 C.F.R. 9 1 95.40h(h). Tlie pipeline
safety regulations require that operators prevent the operating pressure frorn ever exceeding I 10%
of MOP to minimize the risk of incidents on pipeline systems during slirgcs or abnormal operations.
The gravity of a violation of 5 195.406(b) is particularly great because thc safety risk posed to
pcrsons, property, and the environment is elevaled during surgcs or abnormal operating conditions.
Therefore, I assess a civil penalty of $25.000.



Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent
a total civil penalty of $35,000.
Paymcnt of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of sewicc. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. $89.2 1 (b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfcr, through thc Federal Reserve
Communicalions System (Fedwire). to the account of the 1J.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are
contained in thc cnclosure. Queslions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial
Operations Division (AMZ- 120), Fcdcral Aviation Administration. Mike Monroncy Aeronautical
Ccnter, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.
Failure to pay the $35,000 civil penalty will rcsult in accrual of interest at the: current annual rate in
accordance with 31 1I.S.C. 4 371 7.31 C.F.R. 5 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. $89.23. Pursuant to those same
authorities, a late penalty charge of six percenl (6%) per annum will bc charged if payncnt is not
made within 1 10 days of service. Furthermore, hilure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral
of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United States District Court.
WARNTNG ITEM
The Notice did not propose a civil penalty or corrective action for l t e r ~ ~ 1 in thr h'oticc; thcrcf'ore,
it is considered a warning item. Respondent is warned that if i t does not takc appropriate action to
correct its shutdown proccdures in its procedural manual for operations. nlaintenance, and
emergencies, enforcement action will bc takcn if a subscqucnt inspection reveals a violation.
I / ,'
'-7 (
*- -.4 , .a
..
L. L.['.* -- trJ '
s tace Giifard
Associate Adnlinistrator
for Pipclinc Safety
Datc Issued I
I
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 7951