{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520035015","title":"ROCKY MOUNTAIN PIPELINE SYSTEM, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2003-06-04","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.401.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520035015.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520035015.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520035015","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520035015","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ROCKY MOUNTAIN PIPELINE SYSTEM, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.401. The case was opened on 2003-06-04 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\n520035015_final order_12232004.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520035015/520035015_final%20order_12232004.pdf\n\n520035015_final order_12232004_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520035015/520035015_final%20order_12232004_text.pdf\n\n520035015_withdrawal of notice letter_03142005.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520035015/520035015_withdrawal%20of%20notice%20letter_03142005.pdf\n\n520035015_withdrawal of notice letter_03142005_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520035015/520035015_withdrawal%20of%20notice%20letter_03142005_text.pdf\n\ncpf_5_2003_5015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520035015/cpf_5_2003_5015.pdf\n\n520035015_withdrawal of notice letter_03142005_text.pdf\n\nO\nU. S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nz, „t &\"-\"\"~ rtate ~z. (\no CoiTipjjgp(~ p„\nWestern Region Office of Pipehne Safety 12300 W Dakota Ave.\nLakewood, CO 80228\ntf:110\n,\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\nMarch 14, 2005\nMr. Tom McCormick\nManager of HSAE\nRocky Mountain Pipeline System LLC\n555 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2400\nDenver, CO 80202\nRe: CPF No. 5-2003-5015\nDear Mr. McCormick:\nOn June 4, 2003, the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) issued to Rocky Mountain Pipeline System\nLLC a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). Based on a\nreview of the documentation you have provided, it has been determined that you were not\nresponsible for the assets in question at the time the events described in the Notice occurred.\nAccordingly, this case is being withdrawn and no further enforcement action is contemplated\nwith respect to the matters involved in this case.\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\ncc: Compliance Registry (3)\nDPS-28 (W. Nguyen)\n\n520035015_final order_12232004_text.pdf\n\nUS Department\nof Transportatton\nResearch and\nSpecial Programs\nAdministration\n400 Seventh Street, S W\nWashington D C 20590\nMr. Jesse \"Bud\" Metcalf\nVice President of Operations & Technical Services\nRocky Mountain Pipeline System\nP. O. Box 6209\nSanta Maria, CA 93456\nRE: CPF No. 5-2003-5015\nDear Mr. Metcalf:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipehne Safety in the\nabove-referenced case. It withdraws the allegation of violation. This enforcement action is closed.\nYour receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C. F. R. ) 190. 5.\nSincerely,\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Tom McCormick, Manager of HS k E, Rocky Mountain Pipehne System\nMr. Colin G. Harris, Counsel for Rocky Mountain Pipeline System\nMr. Chris Hoidal, Director Western Region\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\nIn the Matter of\nROCKY MOUNTAIN PIPELINE SYSTEM, Respondent.\nCPF No. 5-2003-5015\nFINAL ORDER\nDuring April 24, 2003 and May 7, 2003, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. g 60117, a representative of the\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (OPS) conducted an investigation of a March 21, 2003 leak that occurred\non the Ft. Laramie to Palmer Junction segment of Respondent's 8-inch pipeline near Douglas, WY.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter\ndated June 4, 2003, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In\naccordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had violated\n49 C. F. R. )195. 401 and proposed that Respondent take certain measures to correct the alleged\nviolations.\nIn a letter dated July 3, 2003, Respondent requested and was granted a forty-five day extension of\ntime to respond to the Notice, as Respondent was awaiting a preliminary report on an internal\ninspection conducted prior to issuance of the Notice. Respondent responded to the Notice by letter\ndated August 20, 2003 (Response). Respondent contested the allegations of violation, submitted\ninformation concerning the corrective actions it has taken, offered information in explanation of the\nallegations, and requested a hearing. The hearing was held on March 25, 2004 in Lakewood, CO.\nOn April 26, 2004, Respondent submitted a post hearing brief with additional evidence.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $192 401(b) by failing to correct within a\nreasonable amount of time a condition that could adversely affect the safe operation of the pipeline\nsystem. In August 2000, at mile post (MP) 16. 45, the bare, unprotected portion of the Ft. Laramie\nto Palmer Junction pipeline segment experienced a corrosion related product release. At the time\nof the release the pipeline was owned and operated by BP Amoco. In March 2002, Respondent\npurchased the pipeline from BP Amoco. Another leak, also attributed to corrosion, occurred on July\n5, 2002, at MP 28. 51 on the Ft. Laramie to Palmer Junction segment of Respondent's 8-inch pipeline.\nOn March 21, 2003, a third leak occurred at MP 16. 469 on the Ft. Laramie to Palmer Junction\nsegment.\n\n\n\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent did not take the appropriate steps to correct the aggressive\ncorrosion conditions that led to the first release within a reasonable amount of time. The Notice\nalleged that active ongoing corrosion was demonstrated by the leak history and numerous corrosion\nrepairs following reevaluation of previous in-line electronic inspection (ILI) data. Failure to address\nthe corrosion problem resulted in the same segment of pipeline experiencing three releases in a\nthirty-nine month period.\nIn its Response and during and after the hearing, Respondent contested the alleged violation.\nRespondent advised that it did not own the pipeline at the time of the August 2000 leak and that it\npurchased the pipeline in March 2002 from BP Pipelines (North America) Inc.\nand that under a\n,\nTransition Agreement, BP continued to operate several aspects of the pipeline.\nRespondent stated that it conducted a thorough investigation after the July 2002 leak, and that on\nJuly 9, 2002 it located and reviewed a 1998 \"Flaw List\"summarizing a 1997 Tuboscope ILI of the\npipehne. The ILI had been performed by BP so that it could identify anomahes that required repair\nor maintenance. Respondent argued that during the ILI review it discovered that the pipeline flaws\nthat led to the August 2000 and the July 2002 releases were described in the report but that neither\nhad been investigated nor repaired by BP. Respondent advised that it then examined the ILI report,\ninvestigated all pipeline locations that showed anomalies of 30% or greater wall loss, and made a\ndetermination that none was integrity threatening. Respondent took the position that it had a sound\npipeline.\nDuring the hearing, Respondent argued that the March 2003 leak location, which is the subject of\nthe Notice, was not identified as an anomaly or called out for repair on the 1998 \"Flaw List. \"\nRespondent's corrosion expert testified that there were no known conditions that could adversely\naffect the safety of the pipeline, following the July 2002 leak. OPS did not disagree with any of the\nRespondent's arguments or testimony. In its post hearing submission, Respondent argued that OPS\nhad the burden of proof and that it failed to rebut or counter Respondent's reports and expert' s\ntestimony at the hearing that the conditions leading to the March 2003 leak presented no risk to the\nsafety of the pipeline.\nOPS' role is not to direct how an operator interprets data, as long as the data is interpreted by a\nqualified person in a safety conscious, conservative manner always keeping the safety of the pubhc,\nproperty and the environment first. Respondent submitted documentation that it acted within a\nreasonable time to the July 2002 leak and that the March 2003 leak location, which is the subject of\nthe Notice, was not identified as an anomaly or called out for repair on the 1998 \"Flaw List. \"\nRespondent also submitted documentation to show that it initiated and is committed to completion\nof the tasks identified in the proposed compliance order and will submit the records and notice of\ncompleted actions to the Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety.\n\n\n\nOPS did not present any evidence contradicting Respondent's assertions. Therefore, this allegation\nof violation is withdrawn and this case is closed.\nDEC 23 Z04\nDate Issued\nStacey Gerard\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":8930}