{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520025010","title":"SINCLAIR TRANSPORTATION COMPANY — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2002-04-30","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.452(b)(6)(ii).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520025010.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520025010.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520025010","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520025010","body":"Notice of Amendment involving SINCLAIR TRANSPORTATION COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.452(b)(6)(ii). The case was opened on 2002-04-30 and is reported as closed as of 2005-03-14. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520025010_order directing amendment_12312002.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520025010/520025010_order%20directing%20amendment_12312002.pdf\n\n520025010_order directing amendment_12312002.pdf\n\n@\nU.S.Deporlrnent\nof Tronsporlolion\nReseqrchond\nSp€Glol Prognoms\nAdminlslrolion\n400 Seventh Sl.. S.W\nwashrnglon. D.C 20590\nDEC 3 | 2002\nMr. Kevin Brown\nSenior Vice President - Operations\nSinclair Pipeline Company\nP.O. Box 30825\nSalt Lake City, UT 84130-0825\nRe: CPF No. 5-2002-5010\nDear Mr. Brown:\nEnclosed is the Order Directing Amendment issued by the Associate Administrator for\nPipeline Safety in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of inadequate procedures and\nrequires that you amend your integrity management program procedures. When the terms of the\nOrder are completed, as determined by the Director, Western Region, OPS, this enforcement action\nwill be closed. Your receipt ofthe Order Directing Amendment constitutes seryice ofthat document\nunder 49 C.F.R. $ 190.5.\nSincerely,\nt/L*\n$VY\"'dolvn M. Hill\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mark A. Petersen\nManager, Pipelines and Terminals\nSinclair Oil Corporation\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED\n\n\n\no\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND SPECTAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON. DC 20590\nIn the Matter of\nSinclair Pipeline Company,\nRespondent.\nCPF No. 5-2002-5010\nORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT\nOn March I2-l3,2002,pursuant to 49 U.S.C. $ 601 1 7, representatives of the Westem and Southern\nRegions, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), inspected Sinclair Pipeline Company's (Respondent's)\nintegrity management program at Respondent's,facility in Lakewood, Colorado,, As a result of the\ninspection, the Director, WssternRegion, OPS, issuedto Respondent, by letterdatedApril 30,20A2,\na Notice of Amendment Q.trOA). The NOA alleged inadequacies in.Respondent's integrity\nmanagement procedures and proposed to require amendment of these procedures to comply with the\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. $ 195.452.\nRespondent responded to the NOA by letter dated Jvne24,2002 (Response). Respondent did not\ncontest the NOA and did not request a hearing, consequently Respondent waived its right to one.\nRespondent also submitted amended integrity management procedures with its response letter. The\nWestern Region reviewed the amended procedures. The revised procedures now contain a Section\n206 entitled, \"Technical Basis for Buffer Zone.\" However, Section 206 is summary in nature,\nconsisting largely of three one-page drawings containing various unsupported assumptions\nconceming worst case discharge volumes, spread pool width, and spread pool depth. Respondent\ndid not explain the basis for these values and did not demonstrate why they could be relied upon to\nensure that all segments are properly identified, particularly segments in the vicinity of topological\ngradients, streams and waterways, and drinking water high consequence axeas. Respondent must\nprovide segment identification procedures which include detailed supporting justifications that\nprovide a sound technical basis for the assumptions and formulas used in its spill trajectory\nmodeling.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent's integrity management program procedures are inadequate to\nensure safe operation of its pipeline system. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. $ 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R.\nS 190.237, Respondent is ordered to make the following changes to its integrity management\nprogram procedures:\n\n\n\nI\n2\n1.\nAmend its procedures to ensure that pipeline segments that intersect with drinking water\nhigh consequence areas are included in its spill modeling analysis and identified as\nsegments that could affect a high consequence area.\n2.\na\nJ .\n4.\n5.\n6.\nAmend its procedures to provide adequate technical justification for determining the\nextent of the buffer zone used to identi$ pipeline segments that could affect high\nconsequence areas by including a systematic, detailed, and technically sound land flow\nanalysis incorporating factors, such as topological and hydraulic gradients, that could\nstretch the spill pool footprint beyond that associated with uniform distribution.\nAmend its procedures to provide adequate technical justification for determining the\nextent of the buffer zone used to identiff pipeline segments that could affect high\nconsequence areas to account for the actual flow characteristics of minor streams and\nwaterways that can transport releases of commodity to a high consequence area.\nAmend its procedures to provide adequate technical justification for determining the\nvolume of commodity that could be released from a pipeline leak or rupture in\ndetermining the extgnt of the buffer zone used to identiff pipeline segments that could\naffect high consequence areas, such that the basis for determining the worst case release\nvolume is explained and taken into account\nAmend its procedures to include an independent field validation and quality assurance\nreview of the results of the segment identification process to ensure that all pipeline\nsegments that could affect a high consequence area have been identified.\nSubmit the amended procedures within 30 days following receipt ofthis Order Directing\nAmendment. Submit all procedures and technical justifications demonstrating\ncompliance with this Order to the Director, Westem Region, Office of Pipeline Safety,\nGolden Hills Centre, Suite A-250,12600 West Colfax Avenue, Lakewood, CO 80215-\n3736.\nThe Director, Western Region, OPS, may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the\nrequired items upon a request by the Respondent demonstrating good cause for an extension.\nFailure to comply with this Order Directing Amendment may result in the assessment of civil\npenalties of up to $25,000 per violation per day, or in the referral of the case for judicial\nenforcement. The terms and conditions of this Order are effective upon receipt.\nDEC 3 I m02\nDate Issued\nAssociate Admini strator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":6325}