{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520035031","title":"BP PIPELINE (NORTH AMERICA) INC. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2003-12-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(c)(1)(i), 195.452(f)(1), 195.452(f)(3), 195.452(f)(6), 195.452(g), 195.452(h)(3), 195.452(h)(4), 195.452(h)(4)(i), 195.452(i)(2), 195.452(i)(4), 195.452(j)(4), 195.452(l)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520035031.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520035031.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520035031","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520035031","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BP PIPELINE (NORTH AMERICA) INC.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195,  195.452(c)(1)(i),  195.452(f)(1),  195.452(f)(3),  195.452(f)(6),  195.452(g),  195.452(h)(3),  195.452(h)(4),  195.452(h)(4)(i),  195.452(i)(2),  195.452(i)(4),  195.452(j)(4),  195.452(l)(1). The case was opened on 2003-12-15 and is reported as closed as of 2005-07-06. Proposed civil penalty: $15,500. Assessed civil penalty: $15,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520035031_final order_05162005.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520035031/520035031_final%20order_05162005.pdf\n\n520035031_final order_05162005_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520035031/520035031_final%20order_05162005_text.pdf\n\ncpf_520035031.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520035031/cpf_520035031.pdf\n\n520035031_final order_05162005_text.pdf\n\nU S. Department\nof Transportation\nPlpellhe ahd\nHazardous Materials Safety\nAdAllhls'tratloh\n400 Seventh Street, S. W\nWash(ngton, D. C. 20590\nMr. Lee Edwards\nPresident\nBP Pipelines, NA\n801 Warrenville Road\nLisle, IL 60532\nRE: CPF No. 5-2003-5031\nDear Mr. Edwards:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the\nabove-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $15, 500. The\nFinal Order also finds that you have completed the actions specified in the Notice required to comply\nwith the pipeline safety regulations, and that you have addressed the inadequacies in your procedures\nthat were cited in the Notice of Amendment. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final\nOrder. When the civil penalty is paid, this enforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of the\nFinal 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. Chris Hoidal, Director, OPS Western Region\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\nIn the Matter of\nBP PIPELINES, NA,\nRespondent.\nCPF No. 5-2003-5031\nFINAL ORDER\nDuring March 10-14 and March 31 - April 4, 2003, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. ) 60117, representatives\nof the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), Western, Central, Southern, and Southwest Regions and the\nWashington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WA-UTC) conducted an Integrity\nManagement (IM) Inspection of Respondent's integrity management program in Lisle, Illinois. In\naddition, a supplemental site-specific IM implementation inspection was conducted on September\n2-5, 2003 by representatives of the Western Region, OPS and the WA-UTC in Renton, WA. As a\nresult of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated\nDecember 15, 2003, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, Proposed Compliance\nOrder, and Notice of Amendment (Notice)'. In accordance with 49 C. F. R. ) 190. 207, the Notice\nproposed finding that Respondent had committed violations of 49 C. F. R. Part 195, proposed\nassessing a civil penalty of $15, 500 for the alleged violations and proposed that Respondent take\ncertain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed, in accordance with\n49 C. F. R. $190. 237, that Respondent amend its procedures for integrity management.\nRespondent requested an extension of time to respond to the Notice. On January 8, 2004,\nRespondent was granted an extension until February 5, 2004 to submit a response to the Notice.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated February 4, 2004 (Response). Respondent did\nnot contest the allegations of violation but offered information to explain the allegations and\nprovided information concerning the corrective actions it has taken.\nTins case, however, is no longer before RSPA for decision Effective February 20, 2005, the Pipelme and\nHazardous Materials Safety Admmistration (PHMSA) was created to further the lnghest degree of safety m pipehne\ntransportation and hazardous materials transportation. See, section 108 of the Norman Y. Mmeta Research and\nSpecial Programs Improvement Act (Pubhc Law 108-426, 118 Stat 2423-2429 (November 30, 2004)) See also, 70\nFed Reg 8299 (February 18, 2005) redelegatmg the pipeline safety functions to the Admnnstrator, PHMSA\n\n\n\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nUncontested\nRespondent did not contest the alleged violations of $195. 452 in the Notice. Accordingly, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C. F. R. Part 195, as more fully described in the Notice:\n49 C. F. R. )195. 452(b)(4-6) and (f) (1) — failure to implement a pipeline integrity\nmanagement program that identifies all pipeline segments that could affect HCAs,\nthat failed to update HCA locations and that failed to provide adequate specificity\nand detail to ensure repeatability, as well as complete and accurate results.\n49 C. F. R. )195. 452(c)&1)(i) — failure to include!n i?s baseline assessment plan\npotential seam failure susceptibilities, as there are no technical justifications that pre-\n1970 low frequency electric resistance-welded and lap-welded pipe are not\nsusceptible to seam defects.\n49 C. F. R. $195. 452(h)(2) and (4)(i-iii) — failure to have procedures that include\ndiscovery requirements and failed to schedule remediation within 180 days of\ndiscovery of the condition, as the period between the completion of the ILI tool runs,\nand Respondent's discovery and completion of repairs were longer than the\nprescribed interval.\n49 C. F. R. $195. 452(h)(4)(i) — failure to have procedures that include an evaluation\nand remediation schedule which requires an immediate response to notification of\nimmediate repair conditions and an immediate reduction in the operating pressure.\n49 C. F. R. $195. 452(h)(2) and (3) — failure to have contract language that requires\nILI reports be received Rom the vendor in a time kame that will permit the discovery\nof anomalies within 180 days; failure to have procedures with requirements for all\ntool vendors, as well as specifications for each tool that has been used for\nassessments in the past and that may be utilized for assessments in the future; failure\nto have procedures with objective criteria for defining variances to assign\nresponsibility for the resolution of a list of anticipated circumstances, such as\nincomplete data; failure to have adequate guidelines for the ILI vendor \"Imminent\nThreat Report\" that addresses two immediate repair conditions, pipe strength and a\ndent on top of the pipe that indicated metal loss, cracking or a stress riser; failure to\nhave adequate procedures identifying action to be taken if discovery cannot occur\nwith 180 days of completion of an integrity assessment, including OPS notification;\nand failure to have adequate htrdro static testing procedures to address actions speci fic\nto integrity assessments, such as performing a root cause analysis of test failures,\nmetallurgical examination of test failures, evaluation/analysis of multiple test failiues\n(especially pressure reversals), and spike test procedures to assess potential seam\nfailure vulnerabilities of LFERW and lap-weld pipe.\n\n\n\n49 C. F. R. )195. 452(e)(1), (j) (3) and (g)(1-4) — failure to have sufficient detail in its\ninformation analysis process and procedures to define methods, acquire data, and link\nresults with decisions for effective risk analysis and risk-based decision making.\nThere is also a failure to include a key element, the participation of field\norganizations in the evaluation of risks, review of input data, and review risk analysis\nresults.\n49 C. F. R. $195. 452(fj(3) — failure to have an IMP that includes all programs with\nIMP elements to ensure facility risks to HCAs are evaluated and addressed.\n49 C. F. R. $195. 452(i)(1), (3) and (4) — failure to have fully developed IM\nprocedures, as Respondent's methods for evaluation of preventive and mitigative\nmeasures, evaluation of pipeline leak detections systems, and evaluation of the need\nfor additional EFRDs are only partially developed.\n49 C. F. R. $195. 452(fI(3) and (6) — failure to have fuIly developed IMP, as\nRespondent's plan fails to evaluate preventive and mitigative measures of facilities.\n49 C. F. R. $195. 452(1)(1)(i and ii) - failure to fully develop IMP documentation\nrequirements, as Respondent lacks sufficient detail and specificity to: 1) clearly\narticulate the necessary steps to perform each program element and ensure\nrepeatability; 2) describe the key input information sources; 3) define the process\noutput products, their documentation, including justification for decisions, and\ndocument retention requirements, and 4) specify organizational responsibilities for\nperforming key process steps.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U. S. C. ) 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100, 000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1, 000, 000 for any related series of\nviolations.\n49 U. S. C. $ 60122 and 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, degree\nof Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's abihty to pay the\npenalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on Respondent's\nability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed\na total civil penalty of $15, 500.\n\n\n\nThe Notice proposed a civil penalty of $3, 500 for Item 3a, $6, 000 for Item 3b, $3, 500 for Item\n3c and $2, 500 for Item 3d, as Respondent failed to timely complete an evaluation and remediation\nafter discovery of anomalies. An inspection of Respondent's ILI results and associated repair records\nrevealed instances in which the interval between the completion of ILI tool runs and Respondent's\ndiscovery and completion of repairs exceed the required interval, as required by 49 C. F. R.\n)195. 452(h)(2) and (4)(i-iii). An inspection of the ILI results and associated repair records revealed\nthe following:\nColon Junction to River Rouge Segment- the period of time between the assessment\nand the discovery of three immediate repair conditions exceed the required interval\nby 71 days. A pressure reduction was taken 60 days after discovery of the immediate\nrepair conditions. The repairs were not completed until 66 days aAer discovery and\n317 days after completion of the baseline assessment.\nToledo to West Toledo Segment- the period of time between the assessment and the\ndiscovery of four (4) immediate repair conditions, eight (8) 60 days conditions, and\nfive (5) 180 day conditions exceed the 180 day deadline by 84 days. A pressure\nreduction was taken 2 days after discovery. The repairs were completed between 10\nto 24 days after the declared discovery date.\n8-inch Xylene Line - the discovery of nineteen (19) 180 day conditions was declared\non May 23, 2002. As of March 31, 2003, three hundred twelve (312) days after\ndiscovery, seventeen (17) of the conditions had not been repaired.\nBromley to Tennessee Avenue Segment- the assessment was completed on April 22,\n2002 and the discovery of one (1) 60-day condition did not occur until February 3,\n2003, two hundred eighty seven (287) days after the baseline assessment.\nIn response, Respondent stated that although it is not contesting the civil penalty, it believes that a\ncivil penalty is not warranted and requested reconsideration. Respondent explained that it was\nimpracticable to receive a quality product from its ILI vendor within the time frame specified by the\nrule and that the pipeline industry and ILI vendors were experiencing a steep learning curve related\nto rule requirements. Respondent further explained, in the case of the 8-inch Xylene Line, it\nmisinterpreted the rules applying to assessments completed before the deadline to declare baselines.\n49 C. F. R. )190. 11 provides for in formal guidance and interpretive assistance about compliance with\npipehne safety regulations, 49 CFR parts 190-199. If Respondent needs clarification, information\non, and advice about compliance with pipeline safety regulations, then Respondent should take\nadvantage of $190. 11 to resolve any questions or concerns regarding compliance. Such resources\ndlvllg YY 1th OP& relale'D s lalemen. . d a vi . & -e--s „. - . , arr p! „-. . . g or no . . f 1 +n ncaa A 'c mme 4nu kwn nvnrnAn io ixrarnina ~g ~pati r e nf\nrequired conduct, identify the standards with which OPS expects it to conform and enhance the\ntransparency of the regulatory process. Respondent has not provided any evidence that would justify\nmitigation of the proposed civil penalty.\n\n\n\nRespondent did not contest the violations or the civil penalty. The interval between the completion\nof ILI tool runs and Respondent's discovery and completion of repairs exceeded the required\ninterval. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a total civil penalty of $15, 500, for violation of 49 C. F. R. $195. 452(h)(2) and (4)(i-iii).\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C. F. R. ) 89. 21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal Reserve\nCommunications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U. S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are\ncontained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial\nOperations Division (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical\nCenter, P. O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $15, 500 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in\naccordance with 31 U. S. C. ) 3717, 31 C. F. R. $ 901. 9 and 49 C. F. R. ) 89. 23. Pursuant to those same\nauthorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not\nmade within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral\nof the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United States District Court.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a Compliance Order with regard to Item 2, violation of 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 452(c)\n(1)(i). Respondent submitted information to show that it has addressed all items in the Proposed\nCompliance Order. Respondent revised its baseline assessment plan to address potential seam\nfailure susceptibilities and the susceptibilities of pre-1970 low frequency electric resistance-welded\nand lap-welded pipe to seam defects to meet the minimum requirements of 49 C. F. R.\n)195. 452(c)(1)(i). Respondent has completed all of the required corrective actions in the proposed\ncompliance order. The Director, Western Region, OPS has accepted these measures as adequately\nfulfilling the requirements of the regulations and no further action is needed with respect to a\ncompliance order.\nAMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES\nItems 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 of the Notice alleged inadequacies in Respondent's Integrity Management\nProgram procedures and proposed to require amendment of Respondent's procedures to comply with\nthe requirements of 49 C. F. R. Part 195.\nIn its response, Respondent submitted copies of its amended procedures, which the Director,\nWestern Region, OPS reviewed. Accordingly, based on the results of this review, I find that\nRespondent's original integrity management program procedures as described in the Notice were\ni 4' C '+ v wv 1wna n t +ca @we i'4 t 9\nmduequaie to ensure safe operaulJn oi jlD pipelliiv D)s 'um, u a espo„d . t h s . . . d th\nidentified inadequacies. No need exists to issue an order directing amendment.\n\n\n\nWARNING ITEM\nThe Notice did not propose a civil penalty or corrective action for Items 10 and 12 but warned\nRespondent that it should take appropriate corrective action to correct the items. Respondent\npresented information in its response showing that it has addressed the cited items. Respondent is\nagain warned that if OPS finds a violation in a subsequent inspection, enforcement action will be\ntaken.\nFailure to comply with this Final Order may result in the assessment of civil penalties of up to\n$100, 000 per violation per day, or in the referral of the case for judicial enforcement.\nUnder 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this\nFinal Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this Final\nOrder and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition automatically\nstays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However if Respondent submits payment for the\ncivil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for\nreconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt.\nhlAY 1 6 Zo&~\nDate Issued\nStac Ger d\n~ Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":17323}