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

case documentOfficial PDFCPF_NO_4-2005-5045.pdf#

case documentOfficial PDFCPF_NO_4_2005_5045.pdf#

420055045_final order_04262006_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFU. S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S W Washington, D. C 20590 APR 2 6 ~t"-0 Mr. Jim Lamina President BP Pipeline (North America) Inc. 28100 Torch Pkwy Warrenville, IL 60555-3938 Re: CPF No. 4-2005-5045 Dear Mr. Lamanna: Enclosed is the Fmal Order issued by the Associate Administrator f r Pipeline Safety in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation, assesses a c' vil penalty of $10, 000, and specifies actions to be taken to comply with the pipeline safety reg lations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty i ls paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Sonthni est Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of the Final Order con0 titutes service under 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 5. Sincerely, James Reynolds I Pipehne Compliance Regi]try ~ Office of Pipeline Safety Enclosure CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED#

420055045_final order_04262006_text.pdf, page 2DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, DC 20590 In the Matter of BP Pipelines (North America), Inc. , Respondent CPF No. 4-2 05-5045 FINAL ORDER On July 11 — 15 and 25 — 29, 2005, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. g 60117, repres tatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) Office of Pi eline Safety conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's integrity manag ent program (IMP) in Warrenville, Illinois. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Sou west Region, issued to Respondent, by letter dated October 25, 2005, a Notice of Probable Vi )lation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with C. F. R. ) 190. 207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had violated 49 C. F. R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $10, 000 for the alleged violation. The Notice /so proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violation. Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated November 30, 2005. the allegation of violation and requested a hearing. On March 20, 2006' documentation for the hearing, which was held via telephone conference t Respondent contested Respondent submitted e same day. FINDING OF VIOLATION The Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 452(f)(5), (j)(1)) an d (j)(3) by failing to establish a documented process for establishing integrity assessment i terv als that meets the requirements at $ 195. 452(j)(3). During the July 2005 inspection, PHMS inspectors discovered Respondent's procedures provided for assessment interval determinations b y an inline inspection (ILI) specialist based on the integrity assessment results and repair history without any written process guidance and consideration of the factors at g 195. 452(j)(3). e Notice alleged this issue was previously identified in a Notice of Probable Violation (CPF N5. 5-2003-5031) as Item 10, for which a warning was issued. The Final Order in that case was issu d on May 16, 2005. Section 195. 452(f)(5) requires Respondent to have a written integrity ma includes a continual process of assessment and evaluation to maintain pip 195. 452(j)(1) requires Respondent to continue to assess the line pipe at agement program that line integrity. Section specified intervals and#

420055045_final order_04262006_text.pdf, page 3periodically evaluate the integrity of each pipehne segment that could a feet a high consequence area (HCA). Section 195. 452(J)(3) requires Respondent to establish int prvals not to exceed five (5) years for continually assessing the line pipe's integrity. The interv 1 must be based on the risk the line pipe poses to the HCA (to determine priority), the factors s ecified in paragraph (e) of ) 195. 452, the analysis of the results from the last integrity assessm nt, and the information analysis required by paragraph (g) of $ 195. 452. In its Response and at the hearing, Respondent contested the allegation t at a violation occurred. Respondent acknowledged receiving the warning for the same issue in CPF No. 5-2003-5031, Item 10, and asserted that it had taken measures in response to that arning to satisfactorily address the issue. In response to the Notice issued in that case, espondent amended its procedures to include a requirement that an ILI Specialist provide a rec mmendation addressing the schedule for the next reassessment based on the comparison of orrosion anomaly data between all ILI data available for the particular segment being evaluate . Respondent provided PHMSA a copy of those amendments prior to issuance of the Final Ord . Respondent believed that PHMSA had accepted those changes as meeting the requirement of the regulation based on language in the Final Order, issued on May 16, 2005, which read: The Notice did not propose a civil penalty or corrective action for Items 10 and 12 but warned Respondent that it should take appropriate corrective action to correct the items. Respondent presented information in its response sh wing that it has addressed the cited items. Respondent is again warned that if OPS finds a ' violation in a subsequent inspection, enforcement action will be t en. The Final Order, however, did not make a finding that Respondent' compliance with respect to Item 10. The Final Order merely do Respondent had taken action in an effort to achieve compliance. Acco repeated PHMSA's warning that enforcement action would be taken if found that compliance had not be achieved. PHMSA performed that s July 2005. $ actions had achieved umented the fact that dingly, the Final Order subsequent inspection bsequent inspection in During the July 2005 inspection, relevant portions of Respondent's pro section 4, paragraph 5) instructed an ILI Specialist to provide reassessment when, based on a comparison of corrosion anomaly anticipated five-year reassessment interval needed to be modified. include a process for determining integrity assessment intervals in accortI factors in $ 195. 452(j)(3), including the risk the line pipe poses to the H in paragraph (e) of ) 195. 452, the analysis of the results from the last i the information analysis required by paragraph (g) of $ 195. 452. edures (BPPL-SP-200, recommendation for ata and ILI data, the e procedures did not ance with the specified A, the factors specified egrity assessment, and Accordingly, I find Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. ) 195. 452(f)(5), (j)(1), and (1)(3) as alleged in the Notice. This finding of violation will be considered a prior offe se in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent. Final Order, CPF No. 5-2003-5031, p. 6 (May 16, 2005)#

420055045_final order_04262006_text.pdf, page 4ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY Under 49 U. S. C. $ 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not violation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1, 000, 000 violations. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $10, 000 for the to exceed $100, 000 per for any related series of volation. 49 U. S. C. $ 60122 and 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 225 require that, in determinin penalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and degree of Respondent's cuipabiitty, history of Respondent's prior offen) to pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve c Respondent's ability to continue in business, and such other matters as j the amount of the civil avity of the violation, es, Respondent's ability mpliance, the effect on stice may require. Respondent failed to establish intervals for continually assessing pipeli e integrity based on the factors and analyses specified in g 195. 452(j)(3). Failure to establish adequate reassessment schedule may delay timely remediation of integrity issues on segments at could affect an HCA, which could result in a pipeline failure affecting an HCA. At the hearin , Respondent explained that it believed PHMSA had approved its amendments to the same pr cedures in response to CPF No. 5-2003-5031. While the Final Order issued in that case docu gented that Respondent had taken action in an effort to achieve compliance, no finding w Q made as to whether Respondent's actions had achieved compliance. During the hearing, Respondent asserted PHMSA should have brought ~s case with a Notice of Amendment rather than a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (NOPV). Where a defect in Respondent's procedur ' constitutes a probable violation of a regulatory requirement, however, the Regional Director, n his or her discretion, may issue an NOPV charging Respondent with that violation and pro +se a civil penalty and compliance order. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the asses Respondent a total civil penalty of $10, 000. Respondent has the abi without adversely affecting its ability to continue in business. ent criteria, I assess ity to pay this penalty Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. P )yment may be made by sending a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number for this case) payable to "U. S. Department of Transportation" to the Federal Aviation Adminis tIation, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Financial Operations Division (AMZ-300), P. O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125. Federal regulations (49 C. F. R. $ 89. 21(b)(3)) also permit this payme t to be made by wire transfer, through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwirf ), to the account of the U. S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Qu stions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ- )00), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P. O. Box 2508 f, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893. 49 C. F. R. )) 190 207, 190. 217 and 190. 221.#

420055045_final order_04262006_text.pdf, page 5Failure to pay the $10, 000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest in accordance with 31 U. S. C. ( 3717, 31 C. F. R. $ 901. 9 and 49 C. F. those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for approp States District Court. t the current annual rate . g 89. 23. Pursuant to um will be charged if to pay the civil penalty ate action in a United COMPLIANCE ORDER The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to the violat $ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable saf under Chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U. S. C. $ 60118(b) Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance regulations applicable to its operations. Respondent must— n. Under 49 U. S. C. liquids or who owns or y standards established d 49 C. F. R. g 190. 217, with the pipeline safety 1. Prepare a written process for estabhshing integrity assessmen intervals, which meets the requirements of 49 C. F. R. g 195. 452(j)(3). The pr cess must ensure that assessment intervals are based on specific factors and guidel 'nes, including, but not limited to, leak history, preventive and mitigative action and remediation of , conditions per repair criteria at 49 C. F. R. g 195. 452(h), as a plicable. The process must also consider other "triggers" that may require reass sment sooner than the determined intervals, including, but not limited to, time-de endent events, such as internal and external corrosion, and non time-dependent ev ts, such as third party damage, stress corrosion cracking, and operational changes, that may be identified following a release or during the performance of routine opera ions, maintenance, and inspection tasks. The process must account for threats to th integrity of pipelines identified in the risk analysis and must provide justification fo ) excluding such threats &om consideration, if applicable. Prepare a timeline for applying the process developed in I )em 1 for the pipeline systems included in Respondent's Integrity Management Pro Complete the above items within 30 days of receipt of this documentation of completion to the Director, Southwest Re Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administrati Dr. , Suite 1110, Houston, Texas 77074-2948. inal Order and submit on, Office of Pipeline n, 8701 South Gessner The Director, Southwest Region, may grant an extension of time to c required items upon a written request timely submitted by the Respond cause for an extension. mply with any of the t demonstrating good Failure to comply with this Order may result in the assessment of civil pe $100, 000 per day and in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate r District Court. alties of not more than lief in a United States#

420055045_final order_04262006_text.pdf, page 6Under 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petitio ' for Reconsideration of this Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Res ndent's receipt of this Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). Th) filing of the petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. All ot Per terms of the order, including any required corrective action, remain in full effect unless the Al. ssociate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order Iue effective on receipt. APR 26 tac y rard A ciate Admimstrator for Pipeline Safety Date Issued#