{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420055045","title":"BP PIPELINE (NORTH AMERICA) INC. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2005-10-25","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(j)(3).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420055045.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420055045.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420055045","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420055045","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BP PIPELINE (NORTH AMERICA) INC.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195,  195.452(j)(3). The case was opened on 2005-10-25 and is reported as closed as of 2006-07-06. Proposed civil penalty: $10,000. Assessed civil penalty: $10,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420055045_Final Order_04262006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420055045/420055045_Final%20Order_04262006.pdf\n\n420055045_final order_04262006_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420055045/420055045_final%20order_04262006_text.pdf\n\nCPF_NO_4-2005-5045.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420055045/CPF_NO_4-2005-5045.pdf\n\nCPF_NO_4_2005_5045.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420055045/CPF_NO_4_2005_5045.pdf\n\n420055045_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 2 6 ~t\"-0\nMr. Jim Lamina\nPresident\nBP Pipeline (North America) Inc.\n28100 Torch Pkwy\nWarrenville, IL 60555-3938\nRe: CPF No. 4-2005-5045\nDear Mr. Lamanna:\nEnclosed is the Fmal Order issued by the Associate Administrator f\nr Pipeline Safety in\nthe above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation, assesses a c'\nvil penalty of $10, 000,\nand specifies actions to be taken to comply with the pipeline safety reg\nlations. The penalty\npayment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty i\nls paid and the terms of\nthe compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Sonthni\nest Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of the Final Order con0\ntitutes service under\n49 C. F. R. $ 190. 5.\nSincerely,\nJames Reynolds\nI\nPipehne Compliance Regi]try ~\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\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 (North America), Inc.\n,\nRespondent\nCPF No. 4-2 05-5045\nFINAL ORDER\nOn July 11 — 15 and 25 — 29, 2005, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. g 60117, repres\ntatives of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) Office of Pi\neline Safety conducted\nan on-site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's integrity manag\nent program (IMP) in\nWarrenville, Illinois. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Sou\nwest Region, issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated October 25, 2005, a Notice of Probable Vi\n)lation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with\nC. F. R. ) 190. 207, the\nNotice proposed finding that Respondent had violated 49 C. F. R. Part 195\nand proposed assessing\na civil penalty of $10, 000 for the alleged violation. The Notice\n/so proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violation.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated November 30, 2005.\nthe allegation of violation and requested a hearing. On March 20, 2006'\ndocumentation for the hearing, which was held via telephone conference t\nRespondent contested\nRespondent submitted\ne same day.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 452(f)(5), (j)(1)) an\nd (j)(3) by failing to\nestablish a documented process for establishing integrity assessment i terv\nals that meets the\nrequirements at $ 195. 452(j)(3). During the July 2005 inspection, PHMS\ninspectors discovered\nRespondent's procedures provided for assessment interval determinations b\ny an inline inspection\n(ILI) specialist based on the integrity assessment results and repair history\nwithout any written\nprocess guidance and consideration of the factors at g 195. 452(j)(3).\ne Notice alleged this\nissue was previously identified in a Notice of Probable Violation (CPF N5.\n5-2003-5031) as Item\n10, for which a warning was issued. The Final Order in that case was issu d\non May 16, 2005.\nSection 195. 452(f)(5) requires Respondent to have a written integrity ma\nincludes a continual process of assessment and evaluation to maintain pip\n195. 452(j)(1) requires Respondent to continue to assess the line pipe at\nagement program that\nline integrity. Section\nspecified intervals and\n\n\n\nperiodically evaluate the integrity of each pipehne segment that could a\nfeet a high consequence\narea (HCA). Section 195. 452(J)(3) requires Respondent to establish int\nprvals not to exceed five\n(5) years for continually assessing the line pipe's integrity. The interv\n1 must be based on the\nrisk the line pipe poses to the HCA (to determine priority), the factors s\necified in paragraph (e)\nof ) 195. 452, the analysis of the results from the last integrity assessm\nnt, and the information\nanalysis required by paragraph (g) of $ 195. 452.\nIn its Response and at the hearing, Respondent contested the allegation t\nat a violation occurred.\nRespondent acknowledged receiving the warning for the same issue in\nCPF No. 5-2003-5031,\nItem 10, and asserted that it had taken measures in response to that\narning to satisfactorily\naddress the issue. In response to the Notice issued in that case,\nespondent amended its\nprocedures to include a requirement that an ILI Specialist provide a rec\nmmendation addressing\nthe schedule for the next reassessment based on the comparison of\norrosion anomaly data\nbetween all ILI data available for the particular segment being evaluate\n. Respondent provided\nPHMSA a copy of those amendments prior to issuance of the Final Ord\n. Respondent believed\nthat PHMSA had accepted those changes as meeting the requirement of\nthe regulation based on\nlanguage in the Final Order, issued on May 16, 2005, which read:\nThe Notice did not propose a civil penalty or corrective action for Items 10 and 12\nbut warned Respondent that it should take appropriate corrective action to correct\nthe items. Respondent presented information in its response sh wing that it has\naddressed the cited items. Respondent is again warned that if OPS finds a\n'\nviolation in a subsequent inspection, enforcement action will be t en.\nThe Final Order, however, did not make a finding that Respondent'\ncompliance with respect to Item 10. The Final Order merely do\nRespondent had taken action in an effort to achieve compliance. Acco\nrepeated PHMSA's warning that enforcement action would be taken if\nfound that compliance had not be achieved. PHMSA performed that s\nJuly 2005.\n$ actions had achieved\numented the fact that\ndingly, the Final Order\nsubsequent inspection\nbsequent inspection in\nDuring the July 2005 inspection, relevant portions of Respondent's pro\nsection 4, paragraph 5) instructed an ILI Specialist to provide\nreassessment when, based on a comparison of corrosion anomaly\nanticipated five-year reassessment interval needed to be modified.\ninclude a process for determining integrity assessment intervals in accortI\nfactors in $ 195. 452(j)(3), including the risk the line pipe poses to the H\nin paragraph (e) of ) 195. 452, the analysis of the results from the last i\nthe information analysis required by paragraph (g) of $ 195. 452.\nedures (BPPL-SP-200,\nrecommendation for\nata and ILI data, the\ne procedures did not\nance with the specified\nA, the factors specified\negrity assessment, and\nAccordingly, I find Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. ) 195. 452(f)(5), (j)(1), and (1)(3) as alleged in\nthe Notice. This finding of violation will be considered a prior offe se in any subsequent\nenforcement action taken against Respondent.\nFinal Order, CPF No. 5-2003-5031, p. 6 (May 16, 2005)\n\n\n\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U. S. C. $ 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not\nviolation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1, 000, 000\nviolations. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $10, 000 for the\nto exceed $100, 000 per\nfor any related series of\nvolation.\n49 U. S. C. $ 60122 and 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 225 require that, in determinin\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and\ndegree of Respondent's cuipabiitty, history of Respondent's prior offen)\nto pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve c\nRespondent's ability to continue in business, and such other matters as j\nthe amount of the civil\navity of the violation,\nes, Respondent's ability\nmpliance, the effect on\nstice may require.\nRespondent failed to establish intervals for continually assessing pipeli\ne integrity based on the\nfactors and analyses specified in g 195. 452(j)(3). Failure to establish\nadequate reassessment\nschedule may delay timely remediation of integrity issues on segments\nat could affect an HCA,\nwhich could result in a pipeline failure affecting an HCA. At the hearin\n, Respondent explained\nthat it believed PHMSA had approved its amendments to the same pr\ncedures in response to\nCPF No. 5-2003-5031. While the Final Order issued in that case docu\ngented that Respondent\nhad taken action in an effort to achieve compliance, no finding w\nQ made as to whether\nRespondent's actions had achieved compliance.\nDuring the hearing, Respondent asserted PHMSA should have brought\n~s case with a Notice of\nAmendment rather than a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed\nCompliance Order (NOPV). Where a defect in Respondent's procedur '\nconstitutes a probable\nviolation of a regulatory requirement, however, the Regional Director,\nn his or her discretion,\nmay issue an NOPV charging Respondent with that violation and pro\n+se a civil penalty and\ncompliance order.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the asses\nRespondent a total civil penalty of $10, 000. Respondent has the abi\nwithout adversely affecting its ability to continue in business.\nent criteria, I assess\nity to pay this penalty\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. P\n)yment may be made by\nsending a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number\nfor this case) payable to\n\"U. S. Department of Transportation\" to the Federal Aviation Adminis\ntIation, Mike Monroney\nAeronautical Center, Financial Operations Division (AMZ-300), P. O.\nBox 25082, Oklahoma\nCity, OK 73125.\nFederal regulations (49 C. F. R. $ 89. 21(b)(3)) also permit this payme\nt to be made by wire\ntransfer, through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwirf\n), to the account of the\nU. S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Qu\nstions concerning wire\ntransfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-\n)00), Federal Aviation\nAdministration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P. O. Box 2508\nf, Oklahoma City, OK\n73125; (405) 954-8893.\n49 C. F. R. )) 190 207, 190. 217 and 190. 221.\n\n\n\nFailure to pay the $10, 000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest\nin accordance with 31 U. S. C. ( 3717, 31 C. F. R. $ 901. 9 and 49 C. F.\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for approp\nStates District Court.\nt the current annual rate\n. g 89. 23. Pursuant to\num will be charged if\nto pay the civil penalty\nate action in a United\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to the violat\n$ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable saf\nunder Chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U. S. C. $ 60118(b)\nRespondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance\nregulations applicable to its operations. Respondent must—\nn. Under 49 U. S. C.\nliquids or who owns or\ny standards established\nd 49 C. F. R. g 190. 217,\nwith the pipeline safety\n1. Prepare a written process for estabhshing integrity assessmen\nintervals, which meets\nthe requirements of 49 C. F. R. g 195. 452(j)(3). The pr\ncess must ensure that\nassessment intervals are based on specific factors and guidel\n'nes, including, but not\nlimited to, leak history, preventive and mitigative action\nand remediation of\n,\nconditions per repair criteria at 49 C. F. R. g 195. 452(h), as a\nplicable. The process\nmust also consider other \"triggers\" that may require reass\nsment sooner than the\ndetermined intervals, including, but not limited to, time-de\nendent events, such as\ninternal and external corrosion, and non time-dependent ev\nts, such as third party\ndamage, stress corrosion cracking, and operational changes,\nthat may be identified\nfollowing a release or during the performance of routine opera\nions, maintenance, and\ninspection tasks. The process must account for threats to th\nintegrity of pipelines\nidentified in the risk analysis and must provide justification fo\n) excluding such threats\n&om consideration, if applicable.\nPrepare a timeline for applying the process developed in I\n)em 1 for the pipeline\nsystems included in Respondent's Integrity Management Pro\nComplete the above items within 30 days of receipt of this\ndocumentation of completion to the Director, Southwest Re\nSafety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administrati\nDr.\n,\nSuite 1110, Houston, Texas 77074-2948.\ninal Order and submit\non, Office of Pipeline\nn, 8701 South Gessner\nThe Director, Southwest Region, may grant an extension of time to c\nrequired items upon a written request timely submitted by the Respond\ncause for an extension.\nmply with any of the\nt demonstrating good\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the assessment of civil pe\n$100, 000 per day and in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate r\nDistrict Court.\nalties of not more than\nlief in a United States\n\n\n\nUnder 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petitio '\nfor Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Res\nndent's receipt of this\nFinal Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). Th)\nfiling of the petition\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. All ot\nPer terms of the order,\nincluding any required corrective action, remain in full effect unless the Al.\nssociate Administrator,\nupon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order\nIue effective on receipt.\nAPR 26\ntac y rard\nA ciate Admimstrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nDate Issued","truncated":false,"body_characters":14384}