# ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE CO — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

520025035_Consent Order_05192006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520025035/520025035_Consent%20Order_05192006.pdf

520025035_final order_07192006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520025035/520025035_final%20order_07192006.pdf

CPF_NO_5-2002-5035.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520025035/CPF_NO_5-2002-5035.pdf

520025035_Consent Order_05192006.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



DEPARTMEIYT 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



DEPARTMENT 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



WHERIAS, 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,



with 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



4
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



Exhibit 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



32-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



00-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



00-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



20-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



00-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?



20-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

U.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



DEPARTMENT 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



A 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.



Item 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.



PENALTY 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



6
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.



7
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
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 27571