{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520025035","title":"ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2002-12-31","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(d), 195.412(a), 195.420(b), 195.422(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520025035.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520025035.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520025035","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520025035","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(d),  195.412(a),  195.420(b),  195.422(a). The case was opened on 2002-12-31 and is reported as closed as of 2006-08-14. Proposed civil penalty: $23,000. Assessed civil penalty: $20,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520025035_Consent Order_05192006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520025035/520025035_Consent%20Order_05192006.pdf\n\n520025035_final order_07192006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520025035/520025035_final%20order_07192006.pdf\n\nCPF_NO_5-2002-5035.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520025035/CPF_NO_5-2002-5035.pdf\n\n520025035_Consent Order_05192006.pdf\n\n( Pf i -Jtt; -fu j\\\np\nu.s. Deportmenl\nof Tronsponoton\nPlpellne qnd\nHqroruou3 rltoterlotr Sstclty\nAdmlnbtrotlon\n,rcO Soventh Str€€t. S W\nWashinglon, O.C. ZO51 t0\n,i,lAY I g 21,?6\nMr. James F. Johnson\nVice President for Pipeline Operations\nAlyeska Pipeline Service Company\nP.O. Box 60469\nFairbanks, Alaska 99706\nDear Mr. Johnson:\nEnclosed is the Consent Onler incorporating the Consent Agreernent reached between\nAlyeska Pipeline Service Company and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration, The Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety is issuing this Conseirt\nOrder. Your receipt of the Consent Order constitutes service of that document under 49\nc.F.R. $ 190.5.\nSincerely,\nlra\n<.+--c.^\" [t--\nvt\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Sheila Doody Bishop\nFairbanks Attorney\nCERTINED MAIL - RETT'IBN RECEIPT REOUESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMEIYT OX' TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND IIAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nWASHINGTON,DC\nIn the Malter of\nAlyeska Pipeline Senice Company\nCONSENT ORDER\nBy the atiached Agreement, Alyeska Pipeline service Company (Alyeska) and the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) have agreed to issuance of this\nConsent Order. The Agreement provides for Alyeska to maintain and inspect attwice yearly\nintervals certain valves on the Trans Alaska Pipeline Systern (TAPS). The Agreement settles\nthe pelition for reconsideration of the Final Order PHMSA issued in CPF No. 55501 and the\nallegations of the Notice of Probable Violation PHMSA iszued in CPF No. 5-2002-5O3j\nconcerning valve inspections.\nAccordingly, I hereby incorporate the terms of the attached Agreement and issue this Consent\nOrder.\nFailure to comply with this Consent Order may result in the assessrnent of civil penalties of\nup to $100,000 per violation per day, or in the referral ofthe case forjudicial enforcement.\nThe terms and conditions of this Consent Order are effective on receipt.\nMAY I I mc6\nDate Issued\ntacey L. GErafdAssooiate Administrator for\nPipeline Safety\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\nConsent Agreement Between\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration\nAnd\n)\n)\nAlyeska Pipeline Service Company\nAGREEMENT\nWHEREAS, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §60101 et seq., the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA)', U.S. Department of Transportation, issued to Alyeska\nPipeline Service Company (Alyeska) a Final Order on. November 30, 2000 in CPF 55501\nand a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Compliance Order, Proposed Civil Penalty\nand Notice of Amendment (Notice) on December 31, 2002, in CPF 5-2002-5035;\nWHEREAS, these administrative enforcement actions apply to the Trans Alaska\nPipeline System (TAPS) operated by Alyeska in the state of Alaska;\nWHEREAS, in CPF 55501 Alyeska petitioned for reconsideration of the finding in the\nFinal Order that it had violated 49 C.F.R. §§195.420(a) and (b) and of the $25,000\nassessed civil penalty for the violations;\nWHEREAS, in CPF No. 5-2002-5035, the Notice alleged, inter alia, a violation of 49\nC.F.R. §195.420(b) for not performing a functional test of certain block valves, and\nproposed a civil penalty of $3,000;\nWHEREAS, Alyeska disputes that the valves cited in CPF 55501 and CPF 5-2002-5035\nare valves subject to §195.420(b);\nThe Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) issued these documents. On February 20, 2005, RSPA\nwas split into two new federal agencies: the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the\nResearch and Innovative Technology Administration. (See, section 108 of the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special\nfunctions were redelegated to the Administrator, PHMSA. (See, 70 Fed. Reg, 8299 (February 18, 2005)).\nPrograms Improvement Act (Public Law 108-426, 118 Stat. 2423-2429 (November 30, 2004)). The pipeline safety\n\n\n\nWHERIAS, PHMSA and Alyeska continue to disagree over which valves on TApS\nshould be categorized as mainline valves subject to 49 C,F.R. 9195.a20@);\nWHEREAS, Alyeska is willing to maintain and function test certain valves, and\ndeveloped a Valve Marntenance Management Plan daled September 2001 that is intended\nto ensure valves are \"maintained in good working order.,. to safely, economically and\nenvironmentally support 30+ years of TAPS service,\"\nPursuant to the pipeline safety laws at 49 u.s.c. g60l 01 et seq., and the re gulations in\n49 c.F.R. Part 190, Alyeska and PHMSA (also referred.to as the parties) have agreed to\nenter into a Consent Agreement to settle the Petition for Reconsideration in CPF 55501\nand the allegations of the Notice in CPF 5-2002-5035 conceming the valve inspections\naccording to the following terms:\nl. For purposes of lhis proceeding, Alyeska, as operator of TApS, is subject to\nthe jurisdiction of the pipeline safety laws at 49 U.S.C: $ 60101 et seq.,, the\nregulations promulgated pursuant to these laws, and administrative orders\nissued under authority of these laws.\n2. Alyeska consents 1o the issuance of an administrative order (consent order)\nincorporating the terms of this Agreement and waives any further procedwal\nrequirements, other than notice, with respect to its issuance and all rights to\nseek judicial review or otherwise contest its validity.\n3. This Agreement constitutes a settlement of the Petition for Reconsideration\nof the Final Order in CPF No. 55501 and the allegations of violation of 49\nC.F.R. $195.420(b) in Notice CPF No. 5-2002-5035. PHMSA will not make\nany finding of violation wilh respect to whether Alyeska violated 49 C.F.R.\n$ I 95.420(b) for the cited valves. PHMSA will withdraw the civil penalties\nof$25,000 in CPF No. 55501 and $3,000 in CPF No. 5-2002-5035.\n4. Nothing in this Agreement bars PHMSA from taking action to address any\nfuture violation of the regulations or of the terms of paragraph #8 of this\nAgreement or hazardous situation that may arise with respect to the\nfacilities covered by the Agreement.\n5. Compliance with the terms of this Agreement do€s not excuse any failure to\ncomply with the pipeline safety laws and the regulations promulgated under\nthese laws, except to the extent that the terms of this Agreement are more\nrestrictive.\n6, This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties and\nsupersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements, understandings,\nnegotiations and discussions among the Parties, whether oral or written,\n\n\n\nwith respect to the subject matter hereof. The terms of this Agreement\ncontrol in case of an inconsistency with the record in this matter.\n7. The following valves are covered by this agreement. These valves include\nthe valves cited in CPF No. 55501 and CPF No. 5-2002-5035, and other\nvalves on TAPS.\na. All 48\" full bore valves designated as Remote Gate Valves (RGV) up to\nand including 4l -MOV-2OBLI and 41-MOV-208L2 at Pump Station 11\nand 58-MOV-972 althe end of the mainline at Valdez. and all 48\" full\nbore Check Valves (CKV).\nb. All ramped dovm pump station @S) Battery Limit (BL) valves (at the date\nof this agreement, PS 2,6,8, l0 & l2).\nc. All active pump station BL valves (at the date of this agreement, PS 1, 3,\n4,5,7 &9).\nd. All operator installed 48'full bore manual gate valves (MGV).\ne. All producer inlet valves at Pump Station 1 (PS l)\nf. All valves at the pump stations which isolate breakout tanks (the 20T0\nseries).\ng. All refinery take-off and return valves from the 48\" pipeline that can\nisolate refineries (at the date of this agreement, Flint Hills Refinery and\nPetroStar Refinery in North Pole, and PetroStar Refinery in Valdez).\n8. For each of the valves listed in paragraph #7 of this Agreement, Alyeska\nmust do the following -\na. keep them in good working order at all times per 49 C.F.R. g195.420(a);\nb. inspect each valve to determine it is functioning properly at least twice\neach calendar year, but no longer than 7 % months between intervals per\n49 C.F.R. $19s.a20ft);\nc. have procedures in its Operations and Maintenance Manual for how\npersonnel are to provide for safety during maintenance and normal\noperations of the valves per 49 C.F,R. g 195.402(c);\nd. maintain the documentation demonstrating that it has cornplied with these\nrequirements per 49 C.F.R. 9195.404(c); and\n\n\n\n4\ne. provide protection for each valve from unauthorized opera{ion and from\nvandalism per 49 C.F.R. 9195.a20(c).\n9. For all other valves subject to PHMSA regulation, Alyeska must operate and\nmaintain them in accordance with 49 C.F.R. $ l 95.420(a), g 195.a20(c), and\nthe TAPS Valve Maintenance Management Plan or its successor, and\nmaintain the documentation demonstrating such compliance.\nI 0. The location, addition, or removal of any valve defined in paragraph #7\nmust be in accordance with 49 C.F,R. $195.260.\nI l. Either Party may propose to modify this Agreemenl with notice to the other\nParty. If both Parties agree 1o the modification, the modification will be\nincorporated into the Agreement.\nExhibit one: Graphic depiction and listing of valves addressed in this Agreement.\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERiALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\n[|AY I 9 2006\nDate\nALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE COMPANY\n-ames F\nfor Pipeline Operations\n\n\n\nExhibit 1\nValves required for safe\noperation uPon which a\nbiannual function test is\noerformed,\nL\nY\nJ\no (\\l c) J o E\nPS1\n31-MOV-20811\n0o-cKv-001\n00-cKV-o02\noGcKV-003\n00-cto/-004\n0G,cKV-o05\n20-MGV-OO5A\noGcKV-006\nos,cKV-007\n0&cKV-008\noG.cKV-009\n00-cKV{10\n00-cKV-o1 1\noGcKV-o12\n00-cKV-o13\n\n\n\n32-MOV,20BLl\nPS2\n32-MOV-20812\n00-cKV-o15\noo-cKV-o16\n00-cKV-o17\n00-cKV-01E\n00-cKV-o1s\n20-MGV-o19A\noGcKV-020\n00-cKV-021\n33-MOV-20B11\nPS3\n\n\n\n00-cKV-024\n20-MGV-024A\n00-cKV-025\n2GRGV-026\n34-MOV-208L1\nPS4\n3+MOV-20812\nOGCKV.O26A\nos.cKV{27\noGcKV-028\noGcKV429\nOGCKV.O2gA\n0G.cKV-030\n20-RGV-031\n2GRGV.O32\nzGRGV-033\n2GRGV{34\n20-RGV-035\n20-RGV-035A\n20-RGV-036\n20-RGV-037\ne\\hibil l: Pnge I of7\n\n\n\n00-cKV-038\n20-RGV-039\n20-RGV-040\n00-cKV-041\n2GRGV-042\n20-RGV-043\n20-RGV-044\n20-RGV-045\n00-cKV-046\n20-RGV-047\noGcKV-048\nOGCKV-048A\n2GRGV.049\n35-MOV-20811\nPS5\n35-MOV-20812\n00-cKV-050\n20-RGV-051\n0GcKV-052\n20-RGV-053\n20-RGV-054\noGcKV-055\n20,RGV-056\n20-RGV-057\n2G.RGV-058\n20-RGV-05S\nOGCKV-059A\n20-RGV-060\n00-cKV-060A\n3&MOV-208L'1\nPS6\nOGCKV-6OB €\"\n36-MOV-20812\n0GcKV-061\n2}MGV-061A\n2GRGV-062\noGcKV-O63\n00.cKV-064\ne\\hibrt l: Page 4 of7\n\n\n\n20-RGV-065\noGcKV-066\n20-RGV-067\n37-MOV-20811\nPS7\nOGCKV€7A 48'\n37-MOV-208L2\n20-RGV-068\n00-cKV-068A\n20-RGV-069\n2GRGV.O69A\n0&cKV-070\n00-cKV-o71\n00-cKV-071A\n20-RGV-072\nN\nv\n(r,\no\n20-RGV-073\n00-cKV-073A\nOGCKV-o738\n0GcKV-o74\n43-MOV.190\n43-MOV-19r\n0GcKV-o75\n00-cKV-o76\n2GMGV-0764\n38-MOV-208L1\nPS8\n\n\n\n00-cKV-078\n20-RGV-088\n00-cKV-o7s\n00-cKV-089\n2GMGV-079A\n00-cKV-090\n2GRGV-O8O\n40-MOV-20BLl\noGcKV-oel\n00-cKV-082 i PS10\noGcKV-083\nI re\noGcKV-084\n00-cKV-o84A\noGcKV-08s\n3$MOV-20811\nPS9\n3+MOV-20812\n00-cKV-086\n0&cKV-087\nf ro-*ou-on,\n/oo-\"*r-on,\njoo-\"*-on\"\nT -a\n. (oo-cxv-ou\nf zor,rov-os+n\nzonov-oss\nf\nf *\"*u-onuo\nI2o-RGV-oesB\nleonov-oso\nErhibit l: PaiF 6 of?\n\n\n\n20-RGV-097\n20-RGV-098\n20-RGV.O9EA\n00-ctg-099\n20-RGV-100\n2GRGV-101\n20-RGV-102\n20-RGV-103\n20-Rcv-104\n20-RGV-105\n41-MOV-20811\nPS 11\n41-MOV-20M1 48\"\n41-MOV-20B12\n00-cKV-106\n20-RGV-107\n20-RGV-108\n0()'cKV-'t09\n00-cKV-110\n00-cKV-111\nzO-MGV.1J1A\n00-cKV-112\n20-RGV-113\nN\nJ\n=\nI\no\n+\nE;rhibii l: Page 7 of7\n00-cKV-114\n42-MOV-20BLl\nPS 12\n42-MOV-208a2\n20-RGV-115\n2G,RGV-116\n20-RGV-117\n2GRGV-118\n20-RGV-119\n00cKV-120\n20-RGV-121A\n20-RGV-121\noGcKV-122\n2G.RGV-123\n2URGV-124\n2GRGV-125\nJ\no\n=\nN\nI B\n+\n58-MOV-972\nVMT\n\n520025035_final order_07192006.pdf\n\nU.S. Department 400Seventh Street, S.W.\n1\nof Transportation Washington. D.C. 20590\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration\nMr. James Johnson\nVice President for Pipeline Operations\nAlyeska Pipeline Service Company\nP.O. Box 196660\nAnchorage, AK 995 19-6660\nRe: CPF No. 5-2002-5035 I\nDear Mr. Johnson: 1\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrat r for Pipeline Safety in\nthe above-referenced case.\nThe 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\nterms of the Consent Agreement dated May 19, 2006,\nItem 3 and the associated civil penalty. The Final\nalleged to be inadequate in Item 1 have been\npaid this enforcement action will be closed.\nof that document under 49 C.F.R. 9 190.5.\n4b and 5 (Item # as\na civil penalty\nSincerely, I\nY m e s Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance\nOffice of Pipeline Safet\nEnclosure 1\ncc: Lee Schoen\nSheila Bishop Doody\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 1\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC\n- -\n1\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nAlyeska Pipeline Service Company,)\n)\nRespondent. 1\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom May 21 -26,2001, July 16-20,2001, July 24-25,2001, and 19-20,2002, a\nrepresentative of the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to\nconducted on-site pipeline safety inspections of Respondent's\nat Pump Stations 4,5,6 and 12 on the Trans Alaska Pipeline\nAs a result of the inspections, the Director, Western Region, OPS, to Respondent, by\nletter dated December 3 1,2002, a Notice of Probable Violation, Civil Penalty,\nProposed Compliance Order and Notice of Amendment\nC.F.R. 8 190.207, the Notice\n$9 195.41 2(a), 195.420(b),\n$23,000 for several of the alleged\nto correct the alleged violations.\n190.237, that Respondent amend\nEmergencies.\nOn, January 14,2003, Respondent requested an extension until April ,2003 to respond to the\nNotice, which the Regional Director granted on March 17,2003. Res ondent submitted its\nresponse to the Notice on April 3,2003 (Response). Respondent con sted the allegations,\nsubmitted detailed information to explain the allegations and reserved I the right to a hearing.\nSafety Administration (PHMSA) was created to hrther the highest degree of pipeline transportation\nand hazardous materials transportation. See, section 108 of the Norman Y. and Special\nPrograms Improvement Act (Public Law 108-426, 118 Stat. 2423-2429 See also, 70 Fed.\nReg.8299 (February 18,2005) redelegating the pipeline safety\n\n\n\nA hearing was held in the Western Region, OPS, on March 23,2004,\nRespondent submitted a Closing Statement dated May 22,2004.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem 2 in the Notice alleged Respondent had violated 49 C.F.R. 3 19.\noperator to inspect the surface conditions on rights-of-way at interva:\nbut at least 26 times each calendar year. The Notice alleged OPS ins\naerial and ground surveillance, extensive brush and tree encroach me^\nareas between Pump Station 12 and the Valdez Marine Terminal, pre\neffectively inspecting and ascertaining the condition of the pipeline s\nRespondent maintained it conducts effective inspections of the surfac\nadjacent to the right-of-way. Respondent explained it conducts week\nquarterly ground surveillance and an annual line walk, and these ins^\nobserve the conditions of the pipe and right-of-way. Respondent fun\nfrom clearing between Check Valve 122 and Remote Gate Valve 12:\nbecause the steep grades make it hazardous for personnel to work in\nRespondent periodically brushes the area for cathodic protection mo1\nRespondent conducts the required number of inspections through a r~\nground patrols. At issue is the adequacy of these inspections to detec\nThe purpose of an operator inspecting along the right-of-way is to lot\nand to detect excavation activity that could affect the safe operation (\nadvised it is up to the operator to choose the method of surveillance,\nallow the surface condition to be adequately surveyed. (See OPS inte\ndated December 2, 1988.) Several interpretations have advised that\nkept of clear of brush and trees if visual aerial inspections are used. (\n#195.4 12 8, dated May 28, 1991 .) However, this is -not required by r\nconducting surveillance of the right-of-way more frequently than the\nAlthough I understand OPS's concern that the brush appears to interi\nability to observe right-of-way conditions, OPS did not show Respon\nunable to inspect surface conditions along the pipeline right-of- way.\nwithdrawing this allegation of violation.\nItem 3 alleged Respondent violated 3 195.420(b) because it failed to (\nblock valves BL- 1 and BL-2 at Pump Station 12 and of valve #20M 1\nthe required intervals. The regulation requires an operator to inspect\nintervals not exceeding 7 L/z months, but at least twice each calendar :\nvalve is functioning properly. Respondent and PHMSA have enterec\nagreement to resolve this allegation. The agreement was incorporate\ndated May 19,2006. Under the agreement, PHMSA has agreed to w\n3\nAfter the hearing,\n11 2(a) requiring an\nnot exceeding 3 weeks,\n:ctors observed, by\non the right-of-way in\nuding Respondent from\n.face conditions.\nconditions on and\nI aerial surveillance,\n:tions are sufficient to\nzr explained it refrains\nor safety reasons\ne area. However,\n.oring.\ncture of aerial and\nsurface conditions.\nte any pipeline leaks\nthe pipeline. OPS has\nit the method must\nretation # 195.4 12 7\nghts-of-way are to be\n:e interpretation\nylation. Respondent is\n:gulation requires.\n-e with Respondent's\n:nt's surveillance was\nlccordingly, I am\na functional test of\nt Pump Station 11 at\nxch mainline valve at\nar, to determine the\nnto a consent\ninto a Consent Order\ndraw this allegation.\n\n\n\nItem 4 alleged two violations of 49 C.F.R. $195.422(a) for two separate i stances of not\ncompleting repairs in a safe manner, and ensuring the repairs were made o as to prevent damage\nto persons or property. The first instance was at Pump Station 4 on Sept mber 22,2001, when\nRespondent's personnel removed a button-head sealant lubricant port fro a 24-inch mainline\npump suction valve without relieving the pressure in the valve body. Th internal pressure of\nI\n4\n120 psig forced the button head out of the valve and 200 gallons of oil The second\ninstance, also on September 22,2001, was at Pump Station 5 when not properly\nisolate the 24-inch header from tank TK 150. A discharge of 2,035\ncausing the lower explosive level in the enclosure to reach 100%.\nRespondent acknowledged the spills occurred at Pump Stations 4 and 5 ng the pipeline\nmaintenance shutdown on September 22,2001 and created temporary un afe conditions.\nsafe manner and are made to prevent damage to persons or property. Re r pondent has not\nSection 195.422(a) requires an operator, when making repairs, to ensure he repairs are made in a\ndisputed the repairs made on September 22,2001 at\nevacuation of personnel, and a potentially explosive\nhave been temporary, the regulation does not\nunsafe conditions. Accordingly, I find Respondent violated\nrepairs. Respondent's corrective and mitigative actions,\nhearing, will be addressed in the penalty assessment section of this Orde\nItem 5 alleged Respondent violated $1 95.428(a) for not maintaining its dver pressure protection\nequipment at Pump Station 6. The Notice alleged Respondent had not c librated the pressure-\nalthough Respondent stopped the annual calibration and test of the switc 1when it\nswitch-high #604 at Pump Station 6 from 1996 until November 2000. T e Notice further alleged\ndecommissioned the switch, the switch still had a role in controlling pressure.\nRespondent explained it had mistakenly cancelled the semi annual mainknance of the pressure\nswitch high #604 (PSH-604) in 1997 but has since reinstituted the annu calibration.\nRespondent maintained PSH-604 is a backup device for overpressure pr tection between Pump\n1\nStations 5 and 9 during pipeline shutdown and is not designed to provid protection during\nnormal operations. According to Respondent, the pipeline's integrity s protected by the\nprimary over pressure protection devices at other pump stations.\nSection 195.428(a) requires an operator, at specified intervals, to inspec and test each pressure\nlimiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator or other item of control equipment to\ndetermine that the device is functioning properly, and is adequate for thd service for which it is\nused. The regulation does not differentiate between primary and back overpressure safety\ndevices. Thus, for any overpressure safety device, an operator is to ct the device at\nintervals not to exceed 7 1/2 months, but at least twice each calendar Respondent did not\ninspect and calibrate PSH-604 within the required intervals for a period, albeit due to a\nmistake. Accordingly, I find Respondent violated $ 195.428(a).\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any sub ?quent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\n\n\n\nPENALTY ASSESSMENT\nUnder 49 U.S.C. 5 60122, when the Notice was issued, Respondent was dubject to a civil penalty\nnot to exceed $25,000 per violation for each day of the violation up to a aximum of $500,000\nfor any related series of violations. The Notice proposed a total civil of $23,000 for\nviolation of $ 5 195.420(b), 195.422 and 195.428 (Items 3,4a, 4b, and 5).~\n49 U.S.C. 5 60122 and 49 C.F.R. 5 190.225 require that, in determining t)le amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and of the violation,\ndegree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior ability\nto pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to\nRespondent's ability to continue in business, and such other\nUnder the terms of the Consent Agreement dated May 19,2006, the alle ation and proposed\npenalty for Item 3 are withdrawn.\nFor the two violations of 49 C.F.R. 195.422(a), the Notice proposed a ,000 civil penalty for\nthe incident at Pump Station 4 and $10,000 for the incident at Pump 5. These violations\nboth occurred on September 22,2001 when Respondent had two\nconduct repairs in a safe manner. Respondent said it took\nto mitigate and correct the unsafe conditions. Respondent\nresulted in injury to personnel or significant long term\nexplained that when the Pump Station 4. spill occurred,\nand the spill isolated and removed with no damage to\nbuilding was evacuated, fire foam applied to the oil\nlevel, and little or no long-term damage to the\ndetermined by its root cause analysis,\nprovided immediate refresher training\nprocess and developed procedures for\nrequired to be at the work site when maintenance is performed.\nEach incident resulted in oil being spilled with\nbeing exposed to a dangerous situation. At Pump\nStation 5,2035 gallons spilled with a lower explosive level reaching Respondent's\nimmediate actions are what any prudent operator would do to situation.\nAlthough Respondent's long term actions in revising its\nsimilar repairs are made safely are commendable, it is\nmaintain its pipeline safely. This includes having the\npersonnel to carry out operations and maintenance\nbasis for reducing the civil penalty amounts.\nThe Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for the violation of $195. 28(a). Respondent had\nnot tested this pressure switch for five years. Although Respondent arg ed this was a redundant\ndevice, the regulations do not differentiate between maintenance of red 1 dant devices and of\nprimary devices. The switch was part of Respondent's overpressure probection logic. If the\n\n\n\n6\ndevice had failed it could have led to a pipeline shutdown, increasing isk of an incident\noccurring during shutdown and subsequent start up operations. I do\nmitigating the penalty amount.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment riteria, I assess\nRespondent a total civil penalty of $20,000. 1\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. ~e/leral regulations\n(49 C.F.R. 8 89.21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. ?Ieasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire t sfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ- 120), Federal Aviatio Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 7 ;\"125; (405) 954-4719.\nFailure to pay the $20,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest the current annual rate\nin 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\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for in a United\nStates District Court.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER 1\nwithdrawn, Respondent will not be ordered to take any action. h\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to item 2. Since t is allegation was\nAMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES\nThe Notice (Item 1) alleged procedures in Respondent's maintenance an repair manual. (MR 48)\nwere inadequate to comply with 49 C.F.R. §195.402(d) because they di Inot address deviations\nfrom normal operation, such as when an incident causes an abovegroun anchor to move more\nthan three inches from center. The Notice proposed Respondent ts procedures to include\nmethods for determining anchor movement greater than three for determining\nwhether a safety-related condition report is required.\nRespondent explained it had conducted a structural support study and re iability centered\nmaintenance analysis. The analysis showed three adjacent supports wo Id have to fail\nmanual, at the time of the inspection, did not define the conditions of m! intenance for movement\nsimultaneously for the pipe to be in danger of exceeding its design. Res ondent agreed its\nof pipeline anchors. Respondent said it had amended its procedures to the position of the\nanchors at least once every 90 days and to re-center the anchor if it had more than three\ninches. Respondent maintained this interval would be less than any\nprocedures included painting alignment markers on all\npatrol will be able to see any misalignment.\nthree inches from the anchor center\nRespondent considers a tripped\nprimary method of identifying\ninformation System, a web-based tool in Respondent's intranet.\n\n\n\n7\nThe analysis and amended procedures now appear adequate for Respond to ensure the\nreliability of its pipe support system. No further amendment will be\nUnder 49 C.F.R. 5 190.2 15, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition f r Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respo ent's receipt of this\nFinal Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing f the petition\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. All other t rms of the order,\nincluding any required amendment of procedures, remain in full effect un ess the Associate\nI\nAdministrator, on request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are\neffective on receipt.\npate Issued\nss ciate Administrator\nor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":27571}