ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE CO — Notice of Probable Violation

case documentOfficial PDFCPF_NO_5-2002-5035.pdf#

520025035_Consent Order_05192006.pdf, page 1Official PDF( Pf i -Jtt; -fu j\ p u.s. Deportmenl of Tronsponoton Plpellne qnd Hqroruou3 rltoterlotr Sstclty Admlnbtrotlon ,rcO Soventh Str€€t. S W Washinglon, O.C. ZO51 t0 ,i,lAY I g 21,?6 Mr. James F. Johnson Vice President for Pipeline Operations Alyeska Pipeline Service Company P.O. Box 60469 Fairbanks, Alaska 99706 Dear Mr. Johnson: Enclosed is the Consent Onler incorporating the Consent Agreernent reached between Alyeska Pipeline Service Company and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, The Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety is issuing this Conseirt Order. Your receipt of the Consent Order constitutes service of that document under 49 c.F.R. $ 190.5. Sincerely, lra <.+--c.^" [t-- vt James Reynolds Pipeline Compliance Registry Office of Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Sheila Doody Bishop Fairbanks Attorney CERTINED MAIL - RETT'IBN RECEIPT REOUESTED#

520025035_Consent Order_05192006.pdf, page 2DEPARTMEIYT OX' TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND IIAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON,DC In the Malter of Alyeska Pipeline Senice Company CONSENT ORDER By the atiached Agreement, Alyeska Pipeline service Company (Alyeska) and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) have agreed to issuance of this Consent Order. The Agreement provides for Alyeska to maintain and inspect attwice yearly intervals certain valves on the Trans Alaska Pipeline Systern (TAPS). The Agreement settles the pelition for reconsideration of the Final Order PHMSA issued in CPF No. 55501 and the allegations of the Notice of Probable Violation PHMSA iszued in CPF No. 5-2002-5O3j concerning valve inspections. Accordingly, I hereby incorporate the terms of the attached Agreement and issue this Consent Order. Failure to comply with this Consent Order may result in the assessrnent of civil penalties of up to $100,000 per violation per day, or in the referral ofthe case forjudicial enforcement. The terms and conditions of this Consent Order are effective on receipt. MAY I I mc6 Date Issued tacey L. GErafdAssooiate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#

520025035_Consent Order_05192006.pdf, page 3DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, DC 20590 Consent Agreement Between Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration And ) ) Alyeska Pipeline Service Company AGREEMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §60101 et seq., the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)', U.S. Department of Transportation, issued to Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (Alyeska) a Final Order on. November 30, 2000 in CPF 55501 and a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Compliance Order, Proposed Civil Penalty and Notice of Amendment (Notice) on December 31, 2002, in CPF 5-2002-5035; WHEREAS, these administrative enforcement actions apply to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) operated by Alyeska in the state of Alaska; WHEREAS, in CPF 55501 Alyeska petitioned for reconsideration of the finding in the Final Order that it had violated 49 C.F.R. §§195.420(a) and (b) and of the $25,000 assessed civil penalty for the violations; WHEREAS, in CPF No. 5-2002-5035, the Notice alleged, inter alia, a violation of 49 C.F.R. §195.420(b) for not performing a functional test of certain block valves, and proposed a civil penalty of $3,000; WHEREAS, Alyeska disputes that the valves cited in CPF 55501 and CPF 5-2002-5035 are valves subject to §195.420(b); The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) issued these documents. On February 20, 2005, RSPA was split into two new federal agencies: the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration. (See, section 108 of the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special functions were redelegated to the Administrator, PHMSA. (See, 70 Fed. Reg, 8299 (February 18, 2005)). Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-426, 118 Stat. 2423-2429 (November 30, 2004)). The pipeline safety#

520025035_Consent Order_05192006.pdf, page 4WHERIAS, PHMSA and Alyeska continue to disagree over which valves on TApS should be categorized as mainline valves subject to 49 C,F.R. 9195.a20@); WHEREAS, Alyeska is willing to maintain and function test certain valves, and developed a Valve Marntenance Management Plan daled September 2001 that is intended to ensure valves are "maintained in good working order.,. to safely, economically and environmentally support 30+ years of TAPS service," Pursuant to the pipeline safety laws at 49 u.s.c. g60l 01 et seq., and the re gulations in 49 c.F.R. Part 190, Alyeska and PHMSA (also referred.to as the parties) have agreed to enter into a Consent Agreement to settle the Petition for Reconsideration in CPF 55501 and the allegations of the Notice in CPF 5-2002-5035 conceming the valve inspections according to the following terms: l. For purposes of lhis proceeding, Alyeska, as operator of TApS, is subject to the jurisdiction of the pipeline safety laws at 49 U.S.C: $ 60101 et seq.,, the regulations promulgated pursuant to these laws, and administrative orders issued under authority of these laws. 2. Alyeska consents 1o the issuance of an administrative order (consent order) incorporating the terms of this Agreement and waives any further procedwal requirements, other than notice, with respect to its issuance and all rights to seek judicial review or otherwise contest its validity. 3. This Agreement constitutes a settlement of the Petition for Reconsideration of the Final Order in CPF No. 55501 and the allegations of violation of 49 C.F.R. $195.420(b) in Notice CPF No. 5-2002-5035. PHMSA will not make any finding of violation wilh respect to whether Alyeska violated 49 C.F.R. $ I 95.420(b) for the cited valves. PHMSA will withdraw the civil penalties of$25,000 in CPF No. 55501 and $3,000 in CPF No. 5-2002-5035. 4. Nothing in this Agreement bars PHMSA from taking action to address any future violation of the regulations or of the terms of paragraph #8 of this Agreement or hazardous situation that may arise with respect to the facilities covered by the Agreement. 5. Compliance with the terms of this Agreement do€s not excuse any failure to comply with the pipeline safety laws and the regulations promulgated under these laws, except to the extent that the terms of this Agreement are more restrictive. 6, This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements, understandings, negotiations and discussions among the Parties, whether oral or written,#

520025035_Consent Order_05192006.pdf, page 5with respect to the subject matter hereof. The terms of this Agreement control in case of an inconsistency with the record in this matter. 7. The following valves are covered by this agreement. These valves include the valves cited in CPF No. 55501 and CPF No. 5-2002-5035, and other valves on TAPS. a. All 48" full bore valves designated as Remote Gate Valves (RGV) up to and including 4l -MOV-2OBLI and 41-MOV-208L2 at Pump Station 11 and 58-MOV-972 althe end of the mainline at Valdez. and all 48" full bore Check Valves (CKV). b. All ramped dovm pump station @S) Battery Limit (BL) valves (at the date of this agreement, PS 2,6,8, l0 & l2). c. All active pump station BL valves (at the date of this agreement, PS 1, 3, 4,5,7 &9). d. All operator installed 48'full bore manual gate valves (MGV). e. All producer inlet valves at Pump Station 1 (PS l) f. All valves at the pump stations which isolate breakout tanks (the 20T0 series). g. All refinery take-off and return valves from the 48" pipeline that can isolate refineries (at the date of this agreement, Flint Hills Refinery and PetroStar Refinery in North Pole, and PetroStar Refinery in Valdez). 8. For each of the valves listed in paragraph #7 of this Agreement, Alyeska must do the following - a. keep them in good working order at all times per 49 C.F.R. g195.420(a); b. inspect each valve to determine it is functioning properly at least twice each calendar year, but no longer than 7 % months between intervals per 49 C.F.R. $19s.a20ft); c. have procedures in its Operations and Maintenance Manual for how personnel are to provide for safety during maintenance and normal operations of the valves per 49 C.F,R. g 195.402(c); d. maintain the documentation demonstrating that it has cornplied with these requirements per 49 C.F.R. 9195.404(c); and#

520025035_Consent Order_05192006.pdf, page 64 e. provide protection for each valve from unauthorized opera{ion and from vandalism per 49 C.F.R. 9195.a20(c). 9. For all other valves subject to PHMSA regulation, Alyeska must operate and maintain them in accordance with 49 C.F.R. $ l 95.420(a), g 195.a20(c), and the TAPS Valve Maintenance Management Plan or its successor, and maintain the documentation demonstrating such compliance. I 0. The location, addition, or removal of any valve defined in paragraph #7 must be in accordance with 49 C.F,R. $195.260. I l. Either Party may propose to modify this Agreemenl with notice to the other Party. If both Parties agree 1o the modification, the modification will be incorporated into the Agreement. Exhibit one: Graphic depiction and listing of valves addressed in this Agreement. PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERiALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION [|AY I 9 2006 Date ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE COMPANY -ames F for Pipeline Operations#

520025035_Consent Order_05192006.pdf, page 7Exhibit 1 Valves required for safe operation uPon which a biannual function test is oerformed, L Y J o (\l c) J o E PS1 31-MOV-20811 0o-cKv-001 00-cKV-o02 oGcKV-003 00-cto/-004 0G,cKV-o05 20-MGV-OO5A oGcKV-006 os,cKV-007 0&cKV-008 oG.cKV-009 00-cKV{10 00-cKV-o1 1 oGcKV-o12 00-cKV-o13#

520025035_Consent Order_05192006.pdf, page 832-MOV,20BLl PS2 32-MOV-20812 00-cKV-o15 oo-cKV-o16 00-cKV-o17 00-cKV-01E 00-cKV-o1s 20-MGV-o19A oGcKV-020 00-cKV-021 33-MOV-20B11 PS3#

520025035_Consent Order_05192006.pdf, page 900-cKV-024 20-MGV-024A 00-cKV-025 2GRGV-026 34-MOV-208L1 PS4 3+MOV-20812 OGCKV.O26A os.cKV{27 oGcKV-028 oGcKV429 OGCKV.O2gA 0G.cKV-030 20-RGV-031 2GRGV.O32 zGRGV-033 2GRGV{34 20-RGV-035 20-RGV-035A 20-RGV-036 20-RGV-037 e\hibil l: Pnge I of7#

520025035_Consent Order_05192006.pdf, page 1000-cKV-038 20-RGV-039 20-RGV-040 00-cKV-041 2GRGV-042 20-RGV-043 20-RGV-044 20-RGV-045 00-cKV-046 20-RGV-047 oGcKV-048 OGCKV-048A 2GRGV.049 35-MOV-20811 PS5 35-MOV-20812 00-cKV-050 20-RGV-051 0GcKV-052 20-RGV-053 20-RGV-054 oGcKV-055 20,RGV-056 20-RGV-057 2G.RGV-058 20-RGV-05S OGCKV-059A 20-RGV-060 00-cKV-060A 3&MOV-208L'1 PS6 OGCKV-6OB €" 36-MOV-20812 0GcKV-061 2}MGV-061A 2GRGV-062 oGcKV-O63 00.cKV-064 e\hibrt l: Page 4 of7#

520025035_Consent Order_05192006.pdf, page 1120-RGV-065 oGcKV-066 20-RGV-067 37-MOV-20811 PS7 OGCKV€7A 48' 37-MOV-208L2 20-RGV-068 00-cKV-068A 20-RGV-069 2GRGV.O69A 0&cKV-070 00-cKV-o71 00-cKV-071A 20-RGV-072 N v (r, o 20-RGV-073 00-cKV-073A OGCKV-o738 0GcKV-o74 43-MOV.190 43-MOV-19r 0GcKV-o75 00-cKV-o76 2GMGV-0764 38-MOV-208L1 PS8#

520025035_Consent Order_05192006.pdf, page 1200-cKV-078 20-RGV-088 00-cKV-o7s 00-cKV-089 2GMGV-079A 00-cKV-090 2GRGV-O8O 40-MOV-20BLl oGcKV-oel 00-cKV-082 i PS10 oGcKV-083 I re oGcKV-084 00-cKV-o84A oGcKV-08s 3$MOV-20811 PS9 3+MOV-20812 00-cKV-086 0&cKV-087 f ro-*ou-on, /oo-"*r-on, joo-"*-on" T -a . (oo-cxv-ou f zor,rov-os+n zonov-oss f f *"*u-onuo I2o-RGV-oesB leonov-oso Erhibit l: PaiF 6 of?#

520025035_Consent Order_05192006.pdf, page 1320-RGV-097 20-RGV-098 20-RGV.O9EA 00-ctg-099 20-RGV-100 2GRGV-101 20-RGV-102 20-RGV-103 20-Rcv-104 20-RGV-105 41-MOV-20811 PS 11 41-MOV-20M1 48" 41-MOV-20B12 00-cKV-106 20-RGV-107 20-RGV-108 0()'cKV-'t09 00-cKV-110 00-cKV-111 zO-MGV.1J1A 00-cKV-112 20-RGV-113 N J = I o + E;rhibii l: Page 7 of7 00-cKV-114 42-MOV-20BLl PS 12 42-MOV-208a2 20-RGV-115 2G,RGV-116 20-RGV-117 2GRGV-118 20-RGV-119 00cKV-120 20-RGV-121A 20-RGV-121 oGcKV-122 2G.RGV-123 2URGV-124 2GRGV-125 J o = N I B + 58-MOV-972 VMT#

520025035_final order_07192006.pdf, page 1Official PDFU.S. Department 400Seventh Street, S.W. 1 of Transportation Washington. D.C. 20590 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Mr. James Johnson Vice President for Pipeline Operations Alyeska Pipeline Service Company P.O. Box 196660 Anchorage, AK 995 19-6660 Re: CPF No. 5-2002-5035 I Dear Mr. Johnson: 1 Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrat r for Pipeline Safety in the above-referenced case. The Final Order makes findings of violation with respect to Item alleged in the Notice of Probable Violation dated Dec. 3 1, 2002) an of $20,000. The Final Order also withdraws the allegation of terms of the Consent Agreement dated May 19, 2006, Item 3 and the associated civil penalty. The Final alleged to be inadequate in Item 1 have been paid this enforcement action will be closed. of that document under 49 C.F.R. 9 190.5. 4b and 5 (Item # as a civil penalty Sincerely, I Y m e s Reynolds Pipeline Compliance Office of Pipeline Safet Enclosure 1 cc: Lee Schoen Sheila Bishop Doody CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 1#

520025035_final order_07192006.pdf, page 2DEPARTMENT OF PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY WASHINGTON, DC - - 1 In the Matter of ) ) Alyeska Pipeline Service Company,) ) Respondent. 1 FINAL ORDER From May 21 -26,2001, July 16-20,2001, July 24-25,2001, and 19-20,2002, a representative of the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to conducted on-site pipeline safety inspections of Respondent's at Pump Stations 4,5,6 and 12 on the Trans Alaska Pipeline As a result of the inspections, the Director, Western Region, OPS, to Respondent, by letter dated December 3 1,2002, a Notice of Probable Violation, Civil Penalty, Proposed Compliance Order and Notice of Amendment C.F.R. 8 190.207, the Notice $9 195.41 2(a), 195.420(b), $23,000 for several of the alleged to correct the alleged violations. 190.237, that Respondent amend Emergencies. On, January 14,2003, Respondent requested an extension until April ,2003 to respond to the Notice, which the Regional Director granted on March 17,2003. Res ondent submitted its response to the Notice on April 3,2003 (Response). Respondent con sted the allegations, submitted detailed information to explain the allegations and reserved I the right to a hearing. Safety Administration (PHMSA) was created to hrther the highest degree of pipeline transportation and hazardous materials transportation. See, section 108 of the Norman Y. and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-426, 118 Stat. 2423-2429 See also, 70 Fed. Reg.8299 (February 18,2005) redelegating the pipeline safety#

520025035_final order_07192006.pdf, page 3A hearing was held in the Western Region, OPS, on March 23,2004, Respondent submitted a Closing Statement dated May 22,2004. FINDINGS OF VIOLATION Item 2 in the Notice alleged Respondent had violated 49 C.F.R. 3 19. operator to inspect the surface conditions on rights-of-way at interva: but at least 26 times each calendar year. The Notice alleged OPS ins aerial and ground surveillance, extensive brush and tree encroach me^ areas between Pump Station 12 and the Valdez Marine Terminal, pre effectively inspecting and ascertaining the condition of the pipeline s Respondent maintained it conducts effective inspections of the surfac adjacent to the right-of-way. Respondent explained it conducts week quarterly ground surveillance and an annual line walk, and these ins^ observe the conditions of the pipe and right-of-way. Respondent fun from clearing between Check Valve 122 and Remote Gate Valve 12: because the steep grades make it hazardous for personnel to work in Respondent periodically brushes the area for cathodic protection mo1 Respondent conducts the required number of inspections through a r~ ground patrols. At issue is the adequacy of these inspections to detec The purpose of an operator inspecting along the right-of-way is to lot and to detect excavation activity that could affect the safe operation ( advised it is up to the operator to choose the method of surveillance, allow the surface condition to be adequately surveyed. (See OPS inte dated December 2, 1988.) Several interpretations have advised that kept of clear of brush and trees if visual aerial inspections are used. ( #195.4 12 8, dated May 28, 1991 .) However, this is -not required by r conducting surveillance of the right-of-way more frequently than the Although I understand OPS's concern that the brush appears to interi ability to observe right-of-way conditions, OPS did not show Respon unable to inspect surface conditions along the pipeline right-of- way. withdrawing this allegation of violation. Item 3 alleged Respondent violated 3 195.420(b) because it failed to ( block valves BL- 1 and BL-2 at Pump Station 12 and of valve #20M 1 the required intervals. The regulation requires an operator to inspect intervals not exceeding 7 L/z months, but at least twice each calendar : valve is functioning properly. Respondent and PHMSA have enterec agreement to resolve this allegation. The agreement was incorporate dated May 19,2006. Under the agreement, PHMSA has agreed to w 3 After the hearing, 11 2(a) requiring an not exceeding 3 weeks, :ctors observed, by on the right-of-way in uding Respondent from .face conditions. conditions on and I aerial surveillance, :tions are sufficient to zr explained it refrains or safety reasons e area. However, .oring. cture of aerial and surface conditions. te any pipeline leaks the pipeline. OPS has it the method must retation # 195.4 12 7 ghts-of-way are to be :e interpretation ylation. Respondent is :gulation requires. -e with Respondent's :nt's surveillance was lccordingly, I am a functional test of t Pump Station 11 at xch mainline valve at ar, to determine the nto a consent into a Consent Order draw this allegation.#

520025035_final order_07192006.pdf, page 4Item 4 alleged two violations of 49 C.F.R. $195.422(a) for two separate i stances of not completing repairs in a safe manner, and ensuring the repairs were made o as to prevent damage to persons or property. The first instance was at Pump Station 4 on Sept mber 22,2001, when Respondent's personnel removed a button-head sealant lubricant port fro a 24-inch mainline pump suction valve without relieving the pressure in the valve body. Th internal pressure of I 4 120 psig forced the button head out of the valve and 200 gallons of oil The second instance, also on September 22,2001, was at Pump Station 5 when not properly isolate the 24-inch header from tank TK 150. A discharge of 2,035 causing the lower explosive level in the enclosure to reach 100%. Respondent acknowledged the spills occurred at Pump Stations 4 and 5 ng the pipeline maintenance shutdown on September 22,2001 and created temporary un afe conditions. safe manner and are made to prevent damage to persons or property. Re r pondent has not Section 195.422(a) requires an operator, when making repairs, to ensure he repairs are made in a disputed the repairs made on September 22,2001 at evacuation of personnel, and a potentially explosive have been temporary, the regulation does not unsafe conditions. Accordingly, I find Respondent violated repairs. Respondent's corrective and mitigative actions, hearing, will be addressed in the penalty assessment section of this Orde Item 5 alleged Respondent violated $1 95.428(a) for not maintaining its dver pressure protection equipment at Pump Station 6. The Notice alleged Respondent had not c librated the pressure- although Respondent stopped the annual calibration and test of the switc 1when it switch-high #604 at Pump Station 6 from 1996 until November 2000. T e Notice further alleged decommissioned the switch, the switch still had a role in controlling pressure. Respondent explained it had mistakenly cancelled the semi annual mainknance of the pressure switch high #604 (PSH-604) in 1997 but has since reinstituted the annu calibration. Respondent maintained PSH-604 is a backup device for overpressure pr tection between Pump 1 Stations 5 and 9 during pipeline shutdown and is not designed to provid protection during normal operations. According to Respondent, the pipeline's integrity s protected by the primary over pressure protection devices at other pump stations. Section 195.428(a) requires an operator, at specified intervals, to inspec and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator or other item of control equipment to determine that the device is functioning properly, and is adequate for thd service for which it is used. The regulation does not differentiate between primary and back overpressure safety devices. Thus, for any overpressure safety device, an operator is to ct the device at intervals not to exceed 7 1/2 months, but at least twice each calendar Respondent did not inspect and calibrate PSH-604 within the required intervals for a period, albeit due to a mistake. Accordingly, I find Respondent violated $ 195.428(a). These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any sub ?quent enforcement action taken against Respondent.#

520025035_final order_07192006.pdf, page 5PENALTY ASSESSMENT Under 49 U.S.C. 5 60122, when the Notice was issued, Respondent was dubject to a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per violation for each day of the violation up to a aximum of $500,000 for any related series of violations. The Notice proposed a total civil of $23,000 for violation of $ 5 195.420(b), 195.422 and 195.428 (Items 3,4a, 4b, and 5).~ 49 U.S.C. 5 60122 and 49 C.F.R. 5 190.225 require that, in determining t)le amount of the civil penalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and of the violation, degree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior ability to pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to Respondent's ability to continue in business, and such other Under the terms of the Consent Agreement dated May 19,2006, the alle ation and proposed penalty for Item 3 are withdrawn. For the two violations of 49 C.F.R. 195.422(a), the Notice proposed a ,000 civil penalty for the incident at Pump Station 4 and $10,000 for the incident at Pump 5. These violations both occurred on September 22,2001 when Respondent had two conduct repairs in a safe manner. Respondent said it took to mitigate and correct the unsafe conditions. Respondent resulted in injury to personnel or significant long term explained that when the Pump Station 4. spill occurred, and the spill isolated and removed with no damage to building was evacuated, fire foam applied to the oil level, and little or no long-term damage to the determined by its root cause analysis, provided immediate refresher training process and developed procedures for required to be at the work site when maintenance is performed. Each incident resulted in oil being spilled with being exposed to a dangerous situation. At Pump Station 5,2035 gallons spilled with a lower explosive level reaching Respondent's immediate actions are what any prudent operator would do to situation. Although Respondent's long term actions in revising its similar repairs are made safely are commendable, it is maintain its pipeline safely. This includes having the personnel to carry out operations and maintenance basis for reducing the civil penalty amounts. The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for the violation of $195. 28(a). Respondent had not tested this pressure switch for five years. Although Respondent arg ed this was a redundant device, the regulations do not differentiate between maintenance of red 1 dant devices and of primary devices. The switch was part of Respondent's overpressure probection logic. If the#

520025035_final order_07192006.pdf, page 66 device had failed it could have led to a pipeline shutdown, increasing isk of an incident occurring during shutdown and subsequent start up operations. I do mitigating the penalty amount. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment riteria, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $20,000. 1 Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. ~e/leral regulations (49 C.F.R. 8 89.21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. ?Ieasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire t sfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ- 120), Federal Aviatio Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 7 ;"125; (405) 954-4719. Failure to pay the $20,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest the current annual rate in accordance with 3 1 U.S.C. § 37 17,3 1 C.F.R. 8 90 1.9 and 49 C.F.R. 5 Pursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for in a United States District Court. COMPLIANCE ORDER 1 withdrawn, Respondent will not be ordered to take any action. h The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to item 2. Since t is allegation was AMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES The Notice (Item 1) alleged procedures in Respondent's maintenance an repair manual. (MR 48) were inadequate to comply with 49 C.F.R. §195.402(d) because they di Inot address deviations from normal operation, such as when an incident causes an abovegroun anchor to move more than three inches from center. The Notice proposed Respondent ts procedures to include methods for determining anchor movement greater than three for determining whether a safety-related condition report is required. Respondent explained it had conducted a structural support study and re iability centered maintenance analysis. The analysis showed three adjacent supports wo Id have to fail manual, at the time of the inspection, did not define the conditions of m! intenance for movement simultaneously for the pipe to be in danger of exceeding its design. Res ondent agreed its of pipeline anchors. Respondent said it had amended its procedures to the position of the anchors at least once every 90 days and to re-center the anchor if it had more than three inches. Respondent maintained this interval would be less than any procedures included painting alignment markers on all patrol will be able to see any misalignment. three inches from the anchor center Respondent considers a tripped primary method of identifying information System, a web-based tool in Respondent's intranet.#

520025035_final order_07192006.pdf, page 77 The analysis and amended procedures now appear adequate for Respond to ensure the reliability of its pipe support system. No further amendment will be Under 49 C.F.R. 5 190.2 15, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition f r Reconsideration of this Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respo ent's receipt of this Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing f the petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. All other t rms of the order, including any required amendment of procedures, remain in full effect un ess the Associate I Administrator, on request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt. pate Issued ss ciate Administrator or Pipeline Safety#