{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520045011M","title":"ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE CO — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2004-04-01","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.452(l)(2).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520045011m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520045011m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520045011m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520045011M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.452(l)(2). The case was opened on 2004-04-01 and is reported as closed as of 2007-11-15. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520045011M_order directing amendment_06192006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520045011M/520045011M_order%20directing%20amendment_06192006.pdf\n\n520045011m_order directing amendment_06192006_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520045011M/520045011m_order%20directing%20amendment_06192006_text.pdf\n\n520045011m_order directing amendment_06192006_text.pdf\n\nU. S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials Satety\nAdministration JUN 19 2006\n400 Seventh Street, S. W\nWashington, D C 20590\nB Federal Ex ress and Facsimile: 907-450-5415\nMr. Rob Shoaf\nVice President- Regulatory Affairs\nAlyeska Pipeline Service Company\nP, O. Box 196660\nAnchorage, AK 99519-6660\nRe: CPF No. 5-2004-5011M\nDear Mr. Shoaf:\nEnclosed is the Order Directing Amendment issued by the Associate Administrator for\nPipeline Safety in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of inadequate procedures\nwith respect to Items 1c and 1d of the Notice of Amendment and requires that you amend\nyour integrity management program procedures. For the remaining items listed in the Notice\nof Amendment, the Order finds that with respect to the Notice, no further revisions of your\nprocedures are required. When the terms of the Order are completed, as determined by the\nDirector, Western Region, OPS, this enforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of the\nOrder Directing Amendment constitutes service of that document under 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 5.\nSincerely,\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\ncc: Chris Hoidal P. E.\n, Regional Director\nWestern Region, OPS\nShelia Doody-Bishop, Legal Counsel\nAlyeska Pipeline Service Company\nEnclosure\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nAlyeska Pipeline Service Company, )\n)\nRespondent )\nCPF No. 5-2004-5011M\nORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT\nBetween May 6 and 9, 2003, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. $ 60117, representatives of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), inspected\nRespondent's integrity management program (IMP) for the Trans Alaska Pipeline System\n(TAPS). As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS, issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated April 1, 2004, a Notice of Amendment (NOA). The NOA alleged\ninadequacies in Respondent's IMP and proposed to require amendment of Respondent's\nprocedures to comply with the requirements of 49 C. F. R. g 195. 452.\nRespondent requested a 60-day extension by letter dated May 6, 2004. OPS granted the\nrequest by letter dated May 6, 2004. Respondent requested an additional extension by letter\ndated June 9, 2004. In a letter dated August 16, 2004, Respondent answered the NOA by\nrequesting a hearing and providing a statement of issues it wished to raise. On November 16,\n2004, Respondent presented its plans for compliance with the NOA. In a letter dated\nDecember 7, 2004, OPS found that this presentation did not fulfill the requirement of the\nNOA. In a letter dated July 15, 2005, Respondent submitted updated IMP procedures. In an\nAugust 9, 2005 letter, OPS confirmed a telephone conversation between OPS and Respondent\nregarding a hearing. A hearing was held on September 21, 2005. Respondent submitted post-\nhearing comments in a letter dated November 18, 2005.\nFindings\nNOA Item 1c alleged that Respondent improperly used its segment-specific risk assessment\n(SSRA) to deselect \"could affect\" pipeline segments from its IMP. In response, Respondent\nsubmitted revised procedures for assessing risks to High Consequence Areas (HCA). '\nRespondent stated that its revised risk ranking procedure would be used to identify the need\nfor additional preventive and mitigative measures and to determine if pipeline segments could\n' Respondent's September 21, 2005 Hearing Presentation, Determining Risk Rank, pp. 16-24.\n\n\n\naffect a HCA. Respondent used the revised procedure to create a risk matrix chart that displays\ncombinations of spill likelihoods and consequences and determines a resulting policy of action.\nRespondent erroneously concludes that its risk ranking procedure reveals risks low enough to\njustify deselecting some \"could affect\" pipeline segments from its IMP.\nSection 195. 452(a) requires Respondent's IMP to include all pipeline segments that could affect\na HCA. ' Respondent continues to improperly employ its SSRA to deselect pipeline segments\nthat could impact HCAs. A risk rank classification of minimal risk, while useful in the context\nof considering the need for additional preventative and mitigative measures to reduce risk to\nHCAs, is an unsound justification for exclusion of pipeline segments from Respondent's IMP.\nRespondent's current practice of deselecting pipeline segments where there is possible risk to\nHCAs is contrary to the requirements of Section 195. 452(a).\nRespondent asserts that when applying the regulation, OPS is only concerned with consequences\nto HCAs and does not consider the likelihood of impact. This statement mischaracterizes OPS's\nregulatory mandate. When assessing Respondent's compliance with $195. 452(a), OPS applies\nthe language of that section as it is clearly written. \"Could affect\" means any effect, from the\nsmallest likelihood to the greatest certainty. This finding is consistent with past PHMSA\nfindings that any impact to a HCA requires inclusion of the respective pipeline segment in\nRespondent's IMP.\nItem 1d alleged that Respondent failed to consider additional preventative and mitigative\nmeasures to reduce risks to HCAs. The NOA found that Respondent's risk analysis lacked the\nrigorous level of detail required under the regulations. In response to the NOA, Respondent\namended its procedures for consideration of risk factors when it identifies the need for and nature\nof additional preventative and mitigative measures to protect HCAs. At the hearing, Respondent\npresented a risk ranking methodology and \"Leak Probability Chart. \" Respondent's\nmethodology and chart only considers risks originating from the types of hazards that have\nactually occurred, and not those risks that could otherwise be anticipated.\nSection 195. 452(i) requires Respondent to identify and add preventative and mitigative measures\nto protect HCAs that could be affected by a pipeline segment. To identify the need for and\nnature of these measures, Respondent must undertake a SSRA of each \"could affect\" segment.\nRespondent's SSRA must include all relevant risk factors. ' Instead, Respondent!mproperly\nexcludes a wide range of important risk factors from its SSRA by only listing risks from hazards\nId. at 16.\nId at 20.\n' Id. at 20-22. Respondent asserts that risks low enough to fit into Risk Rank 4 do not justify inclusion in its IMP.\nOnly by demonstration through Risk Assessment that the pipeline could not affect an HCA may that particular\npipeline segment be removed from Respondent's IMP. See 49 C F. R. $195. 452(a). Respondent may not make an\nend run around the requirements of $195 452(a) by identifying a \"could affect\" segment and later deselecting it\nbecause the risk is determined to be low as a result of a $195. 452(i) mandated SRA.\nSee $192 452(i) Risk assessment is used to \"identify additional actions to enhance public safety or environmental\nprotection \"\nRespondent's November 18, 2005, Post-hearing letter, p. 3.\nIn the matter of BP Exploration Alaska, Inc.\n,\nOrder Directing Amendment, p. 2, CPF No. 5-2002-5024M (Apr. 25,\n2006) (holding that segments which presented even minimal risk to a HCA must be included in Respondent's IMP);\nIn the matter of BP Exploration Alaska, Inc.\n,\nOrder Directing Amendment, p. 2, CPF No. 5-2004-5019M (Apr. 25,\n2006) (holdmg that absent clear evidence that a HCA is not affected by a given pipeline segment, that segment must\nbe included in Respondent's segment identification analysis)\n\" )195. 452(i)(2) provides a non-exclusive list of relevant risk factors.Respondent's September 21, 2005, Hearing Presentation, Linewide Threat Results, p. 11\n\n\n\nthat have actually occurred in the past. Respondent has failed to consider anticipated risks such\nas potential overpressure situations due to an uncommanded valve closure, human error, or a fast\ntransient pressure spike. Respondent's failure to include anticipated hazards limits the\nusefulness of its SSRA and is not protective of pipeline safety. Preventative and mitigative\nmeasures cannot be meaningfully assessed without consideration of a full range of risk factors,\nincluding those Respondent is fortunate enough not to have experienced in the past.\nThe Director, Western Region, reviewed the revised procedures and the materials presented at\nthe hearing and afterward. Based on the results of that review, I find that Respondent's original\nIMP procedures, as described in the NOA, were inadequate to ensure safe operation of its\npipeline system, but that Respondent has corrected the inadequacies identified in NOA Items 1a\nand lb. Respondent need not make any further revisions based on the NOA with respect to these\nitems. With respect to Items 1c and 1d, I find that Respondent's IMP procedures remain\ninadequate to ensure safe operation of its pipeline system. Pursuant to 49 U. S. C. $ 60108(a) and\n49 C. F. R. $ 190. 237, Respondent is ordered to make the following revisions to its integrity\nmanagement program procedures. Respondent must—\n1. Include in its IMP any pipeline segments that could affect an HCA, regardless of the\nmagnitude of that potential impact and not use an SSRA finding of minimal impact as\njustification for deselection of pipeline segments.\n2. Include in its SSRA a thorough and careful weighing of risk factors, including all\nrelevant anticipated and known risks. The amended SSRA must then be used to assess\nthe need for and nature of mitigative and preventative measures to protect HCAs that\ncould be affected by a pipeline segment.\n3. Submit the amended procedures to the Director, Western Region, OPS within 30 days\nfollowing receipt of this Order Directing Amendment. With respect to the submission of\namended procedures, the Director may notify Respondent if any or all of the procedures\nhave been amended satisfactorily, or, if further modification is necessary, require\nrespondent to modify the submission to cure deficiencies. If the Director finds\ndeficiencies and orders further modification, Respondent must proceed to take all action\nto correct its procedures to comply with this order. Respondent must correct all\ndeficiencies within the time specified by the Director, and resubmit the procedures for\nreview. If a resubmitted item is disapproved in whole or in part, the Director may again\nrequire Respondent to correct the deficiencies in accordance with the foregoing\nprocedure, or the Director may otherwise proceed to enforce the terms of this Order.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent demonstrating good cause for an extension.\n\n\n\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the assessment of administrative civil penalties\nof up to $100, 000 per violation per day, or in the referral of the case for judicial enforcement.\nThe terms and conditions of this Order Directing Amendment are effective upon receipt.\nJUN 19 2006\nDate Issued\nSta e\nAsso\nGe d\nate Administrator for Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":11778}