{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520045033","title":"TESORO HIGH PLAINS PIPELINE COMPANY LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2004-12-09","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(b)(3), 195.452(e), 195.452(f)(1), 195.452(f)(4), 195.452(f)(7), 195.452(f)(8), 195.452(i)(1), 195.452(j)(3), 195.452(j)(4)(ii), 195.452(l)(ii).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520045033.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520045033.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520045033","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520045033","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TESORO HIGH PLAINS PIPELINE COMPANY LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195,  195.452(b)(3),  195.452(e),  195.452(f)(1),  195.452(f)(4),  195.452(f)(7),  195.452(f)(8),  195.452(i)(1),  195.452(j)(3),  195.452(j)(4)(ii),  195.452(l)(ii). The case was opened on 2004-12-09 and is reported as closed as of 2010-01-08. Proposed civil penalty: $20,000. Assessed civil penalty: $10,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520045033_FinalOrder_07092009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520045033/520045033_FinalOrder_07092009.pdf\n\n520045033_FinalOrder_07092009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520045033/520045033_FinalOrder_07092009_text.pdf\n\n520045033_FinalOrder_07092009_text.pdf\n\nJUL 09 2009\nMr. John W. Moore\nVice-President, Pipelines and Terminals\nTesoro Refining and Marketing Company\n1225 17th Street, Suite 1800\nDenver, CO 80202\nRe: CPF No. 5-2004-5033\nDear Mr. Moore:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation,\nwithdraws one allegation of violation and part of another, and assesses a reduced civil penalty of\n$10,000. The Final Order also specifies actions that need to be taken by Tesoro to comply with\nthe pipeline safety regulations and to revise its Integrity Management Program procedures. The\npenalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order.\nWhen the civil penalty has been paid, the terms of the compliance order completed, and the\nprocedures satisfactorily amended, as determined by the Director, Western Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that\ndocument under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [ 7005 0390 0005 6162 5036]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nTesoro Refining and Marketing Co., ) CPF No. 5-2004-5033\n)\nRespondent. )\n________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom November 4-6, 2003, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the written Integrity Management Program\n(IMP) of Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company (Tesoro or Respondent) at the company’s\nthe United States, including ones in Alaska, Hawaii, Utah, and North Dakota. At the time of the\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)1 , Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\noffices in Denver, Colorado. Tesoro’s IMP covers all of its DOT-regulated pipeline systems in\ninspection, Tesoro operated approximately 335 miles of regulated hazardous liquid pipelines.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated December 9, 2004, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, Proposed Compliance Order, and Notice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had committed various\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452, assessing a civil penalty of $20,000 for the said violations,\nand ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct said violations. The Notice also\nproposed, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.237, that Tesoro amend its IMP procedures.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated January 7, 2005 (Response). Tesoro\ncontested certain allegations and submitted copies of its revised IMP procedures. Respondent\ndid not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one. The following Final Order\ndiscusses each of the allegations set forth in the Notice and the issues raised by Respondent. The\ndiscussion is divided into six sections: Findings of Violation; Assessment of Penalty;\nCompliance Order; Amendment of Procedures; Order Directing Amendment; and Warning\nItems.\n1 Effective February 20, 2005, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) succeeded the\nResearch and Special Programs Administration as the agency responsible for regulating safety in pipeline\ntransportation and hazardous materials transportation. See, section 108 of the Norman Y. Mineta Research and\nSpecial Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-426, 118 Stat. 2423-2429 (November 30, 2004)). See also, 70\nFed. Reg. 8299 (February 18, 2005) redelegating the pipeline safety authorities and functions to the PHMSA\nAdministrator.\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nContested Items\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1(a): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(1), which states,\nin relevant part:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence\nareas.\n(a) ….\n(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An\nintegrity management program begins with the initial framework. An\noperator must continually change the program to reflect operating\nexperience, conclusions drawn from results of the integrity assessments,\nand other maintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation of\nconsequences of a failure on the high consequence area. An operator must\ninclude, at minimum, each of the following elements in its written\nintegrity management program:\n(1) A process for identifying which pipeline segments could affect a\nhigh consequence area; . . .\n(3) An analysis that integrates all available information about the\nintegrity of the entire pipeline and the consequences of a failure (see\nparagraph (g) of this section);\n(4) Criteria for remedial actions to address integrity issues raised by\nthe assessment methods and information analysis (see paragraph (h) of this\nsection); . . .\n(7) Methods to measure the program’s effectiveness (see paragraph\n(k) of this section);\n(8) A process for review of integrity assessment results and\ninformation analysis by a person qualified to evaluate the results and\ninformation (see paragraph (h)(2) of this section).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.452(f)(1) by failing to identify all of the\npipeline segments in its system that “could affect” a High Consequence Area (HCA).2\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Tesoro’s “could affect” segment maps were neither\nconsistent with Appendix C of its own IMP manual nor the maps in the National Pipeline\nMapping System (NPMS). For example, the company’s maps did not include “could affect”\nsegments of the Great Plains Pipeline that were located close to Other Populated Area (OPA)\n3\nHCAs.\n2 An HCA is defined as: (1) A commercially navigable waterway, which means a waterway where a substantial\nlikelihood of commercial navigation exists; (2) A high population area, which means an urbanized area, as defined\nand delineated by the Census Bureau, that contains 50,000 or more people and has a population density of at least\n1,000 people per square mile; (3) An other populated area, which means a place, as defined and delineated by the\nCensus Bureau, that contains a concentrated population, such as an incorporated or unincorporated city, town,\nvillage, or other designated residential or commercial area; (4) An unusually sensitive area. See 49 C.F.R. § 195.6.\n3 Id.\n\n\n\n3\nIn its Response, Tesoro contested this allegation yet acknowledged that it had left two OPA\nreflect that its pipeline could affect these OPA HCAs. Respondent argued, however, that the\nHCAs out of its IMP.4 Tesoro further noted that it had revised its IMP after the inspection to\nomission of these OPAs had “minimal” impact on its program because they were low-risk\nsegments in Tesoro’s overall risk ranking system.\nI find Respondent’s arguments unpersuasive. One of the principal goals of the segment\nidentification process is for operators to ensure that they identify, and include in their IMPs, all\npipeline segments that “could affect” an HCA. It is irrelevant whether the segments Tesoro\nfailed to include were either low-risk or high-risk. Respondent was required to identify all\n“could affect” segments yet failed to do so. After considering all the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated § 195.452(f)(1) by failing to identify all pipeline segments that “could\naffect” HCAs.\nThe Notice also alleged that Tesoro could not ensure that all of its pipelines were accurately\nreflected in the NPMS. However, in its Response, Tesoro presented information demonstrating\nthat it had timely submitted NPMS data on June 16, 2003, and had thereafter submitted revised\ninformation as it became available. Therefore, I withdraw this portion of the allegation of\nviolation.\nItem 1(b): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(1), as quoted\nabove, by failing to have an adequate process for identifying which pipeline segments “could\naffect” an HCA. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the process was inadequate because Tesoro\nhad not performed segment identification on one of its pipeline systems known as the Golden\nEagle Pipeline. Subsequent to the inspection, OPS learned that the Golden Eagle Pipeline is an\nintrastate pipeline currently regulated by the California State Fire Marshal and not by OPS.\nAccordingly, I withdraw this allegation of violation.\nUncontested Items\nIn its Response, Respondent did not contest the following allegations in the Notice that it\nviolated 49 C.F.R. Part 195:\nItem 1(c): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(3), as quoted\nabove, by failing to include in its IMP an analysis that integrated all available information about\nthe integrity of its entire pipeline system and the consequences of a failure. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that Tesoro failed to consider potential release volumes from its entire pipeline\nsystem, including tanks. Tesoro did not contest this allegation. Accordingly, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(3) by failing to include in its IMP an analysis that\nintegrated all available information about the integrity of its entire pipeline system and the\nconsequences of a failure.\nItem 3(a): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(8), as quoted\nabove, by failing to include in its IMP a process for the review of integrity assessment results and\na means for revision control. Tesoro did not contest this allegation. Accordingly, I find that\n4 Response at 2. While the two HCAs appeared on Tesoro’s “HCA analysis maps,” these areas were omitted from\nthe tabular list of HCAs in Appendix C.\n\n\n\n4\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(8) by failing to include in its IMP a process for the\nreview of integrity assessment results and a means for revision control.\nItem 3(b): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(8), as quoted\nabove, by failing to include in its IMP a process for ensuring that personnel reviewing integrity\nassessment results are qualified to perform such reviews. Tesoro did not contest this allegation.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(8) by failing to include in its\nIMP a process for ensuring that personnel reviewing integrity assessment results are qualified to\nperform such reviews.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(4), as quoted\nabove, by failing to have sufficiently detailed criteria for taking remedial action to address\nintegrity issues raised by the assessment methods and information analysis used in its IMP.\nTesoro did not contest this allegation. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated\n§ 195.452(f)(4) by failing to have sufficiently detailed criteria for taking remedial action to\naddress integrity issues raised by the assessment methods and information analysis in its IMP.\nItem 5(a): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(e)(1), which states,\nin relevant part:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) ….\n(e) What are the risk factors for establishing an assessment schedule\n(for both the baseline and continual integrity assessments)?\n(1) An operator must establish an integrity assessment schedule that\nprioritizes pipeline segments for assessment (see paragraphs (d)(1) and\n(j)(3) of this section). An operator must base the assessment schedule on\nall risk factors that reflect the risk conditions on the pipeline segment. The\nfactors an operator must consider, but are not limited to: ….\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.452(e)(1) by failing to set an integrity\nassessment schedule based upon all risk factors that reflect the risk conditions on each pipeline\nsegment. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Tesoro’s risk analysis lacked definitions for\nvariables, variable weights, the basis for risk factors, and a process for populating, maintaining,\nand updating the input database. Tesoro did not contest this allegation. Accordingly, I find that\nRespondent violated § 195.452(e)(1) by failing to set an integrity assessment schedule based\nupon all risk factors that reflect the risk conditions on each pipeline segment.\nItem 5(b): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(e)(1), as quoted\nabove, by failing to include breakout tanks in the risk analysis it performed for determining an\nintegrity assessment schedule. More fundamentally, the Notice alleged that Tesoro did not\ninclude breakout tanks in its IMP. Tesoro did not contest this allegation. Accordingly, I find\nthat Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(e)(1), by failing to include breakout tanks in the\nrisk analysis it performed for determining an integrity assessment schedule or to include such\ntanks at all in its IMP.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(1), which states:\n\n\n\n5\n195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence\nareas.\n(a) ….\n(i) What preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take to\nprotect the high consequence area?\n(1) General requirements. An operator must take measures to prevent\nand mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure that could affect a high\nconsequence area. These measures include conducting a risk analysis of\nthe pipeline segment to identify additional actions to enhance public safety\nor environmental protection. Such actions may include, but are not\nlimited to, implementing damage prevention best practices, better\nmonitoring of cathodic protection where corrosion is a concern,\nestablishing shorter inspection intervals, installing EFRDs on the pipeline\nsegment, modifying the systems that monitor pressure and detect leaks,\nproviding additional training to personnel on response procedures,\nconducting drills with local emergency responders and adopting other\nmanagement controls.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.452(i)(1) by failing to have an adequate\nprocess for selecting and implementing measures to prevent and mitigate the consequences of a\npipeline failure that could affect an HCA. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Tesoro’s IMP\nlacked a detailed process for assessing risks, selecting candidate preventive and mitigative\nmeasures, and deciding whether to implement them. Tesoro did not contest this allegation.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violated § 195.452(i)(1) by failing to have an adequate\nprocess for selecting and implementing measures to prevent and mitigate the consequences of a\npipeline failure that could affect an HCA.\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(7), as quoted\nabove, by failing to include adequate methods to measure the effectiveness of its IMP.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Tesoro had neither a clearly defined process for applying\nperformance metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of its IMP nor a process for distribution and\nreview of its evaluation results. Tesoro did not contest this allegation. Accordingly, I find that\nRespondent violated § 195.452(f)(4) by failing to include adequate methods to measure the\neffectiveness of its IMP.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of a civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s ability to pay the penalty and any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\n\n\n\n6\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil\npenalty of $20,000 for two violations of § 195.452(f)(1).\nNotice Item 1(a) proposed a civil penalty of $10,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(1),\nfor Respondent’s alleged failure to identify all of its pipeline segments that “could affect” an\nHCA. Tesoro contested this allegation yet acknowledged that it had left two OPA HCAs out of\nits IMP. Tesoro argued, however, that when it subsequently added the two OPAs to its IMP, the\nrisks to the OPAs were found to be relatively low in the overall risk ranking. As discussed\nabove, Tesoro is responsible for identifying and including in its IMP all “could affect” segments,\nregardless of risk ranking. Tesoro has submitted no evidence that would warrant the reduction or\nelimination of the civil penalty for this Item. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $10,000 for violating\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(1).\nNotice Item 1(b) proposed a civil penalty of $10,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(1),\nfor Respondent’s alleged failure to have an adequate process for identifying which pipeline\nsegments could affect an HCA. This allegation of violation has been withdrawn. Accordingly, I\nwithdraw the proposed penalty for this Item.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Payment may be made by\nsending a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number for this case) payable to\n“U.S. Department of Transportation” to the Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney\nAeronautical Center, Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma\nCity, OK 73125.\nFederal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) also permit this payment to be made by wire\ntransfer, through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the\nU.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire\ntransfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation\nAdministration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, OK\n73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $10,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. 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 pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United\nStates District Court.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1(a-c), 3(a-b), 4, 5(a-b), 6 and 7\nin the Notice for violations of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452.\nThe Final Order withdraws a portion of the allegation in Item 1(a) and the full allegation of\nviolation in Item 1(b) of the Notice. Therefore, Respondent need not take any action regarding\nthose Items. Regarding the proposed compliance order related to Items 3(a-b), 4, 6 and 7 of the\nNotice, the Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions to address the\ncited violations:\n\n\n\n7\n1. With respect to Item 3(a), concerning Tesoro’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(8),\nSection IM007 of the company’s revised procedures now includes a process and means\nfor revision control, for performing reviews of integrity assessment results.\n2. With respect to Item 3(b), concerning Tesoro’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(8),\nSection IM007 of the company’s revised procedures now includes a process to ensure\nthat personnel performing reviews of integrity assessment results are qualified.\n3. With respect to Item 4, concerning Tesoro’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(4),\nSection IM010 of the company’s revised procedures now includes additional detail in the\nprocess for determining what pipeline repairs are necessary.\n4. With respect to Item 6, concerning Tesoro’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(1),\nSection IM011 of the company’s revised procedures now includes a detailed\nmethodology for evaluating the effectiveness of preventive and mitigative measures.\n5. With respect to Item 7, concerning Tesoro’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195452(f)(7),\nsection FM015-02 of the company’s revised procedures now includes improved methods\nto measure IMP effectiveness.\nAccordingly, since compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations, the\ncompliance terms are not included in this Order.\nA compliance order remains necessary however, to address the violations described in Items 1(c)\nand 5(a-b). In its Response, Tesoro indicated that it planned to update its processes and\nprocedures in response to Notice Items 1(c) and 5(b). Regarding Item 5(a), Tesoro submitted\nrevised procedures. However, these procedures remain inadequate because the company has not\nmodified its risk model to incorporate all threats that may be applicable to its operations. For\nexample, Tesoro has pipelines in areas where conditions that may promote stress corrosion\ncracking (SCC) are known to exist but the company has not incorporated SCC threats into its risk\nmodel.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids\nor who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and\n49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance\nwith the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations. Respondent shall:\n1. Regarding Item 1(c), pertaining to Tesoro’s violation of § 195.452(f)(3) for its failure to\nconduct an analysis that integrates certain information about the integrity of its pipelines\nand the consequence of a failure, identify and include in its IMP all pipeline facilities that\ncould affect an HCA.\n2. Regarding Item 5(a), pertaining to Tesoro’s violation of § 195.452(e)(1) for its failure to\nsufficiently document a process for risk analysis in support of its assessment schedule,\nmodify its risk model and procedures to include all threats that may be applicable to its\noperations, including, but not limited to, SCC threats.\n3. Regarding Item 5(b), pertaining to Tesoro’s violation of § 195.452(e)(1) for its failure to\ninclude breakout tanks in the risk analysis supporting its integrity assessment schedule\nand in its IMP, include breakout tanks in its IMP and add them to the risk analysis.\n\n\n\n8\n4. Regarding all Compliance Order requirements listed above, ensure that all revised\nprocedures and processes are of sufficient detail such that they: (a) clearly articulate the\nnecessary steps to perform each program element and ensure repeatability; (b) describe\nkey sources for information inputs; (c) define process outputs, process documentation\n(including documentation of the justifications for decisions), and document retention\nrequirements; and (d) specify organizational responsibilities for each key step in the\nprocess or procedure.\n5. Within 60 days of receipt of this Final Order, Tesoro must complete the work required in\nparagraphs 1-4 above and submit documentation and revised procedures to the Director,\nWestern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 12300 W. Dakota Avenue, Suite\n110, Lakewood, CO 80228.\n6. Tesoro must maintain documentation of the costs associated with fulfilling this\ncompliance order and submit the total to the Director, Western Region.\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.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not\nto exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nAMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES\nItems 1(d), 3(c), 3(d) and 8 in the Notice alleged certain inadequacies in Respondent’s IMP and\nproposed to require that the company amend its IMP procedures to comply with the requirements\nof 49 C.F.R. § 195.452. In its Response, Tesoro submitted copies of its amended procedures,\nwhich the Director has reviewed. Accordingly, based on the results of this review, I find that\nRespondent’s original procedures as described in the Notice were inadequate to ensure safe\noperation of its pipeline system, but that Respondent has corrected the identified inadequacies.\nTherefore, no need exists to issue an Order Directing Amendment for these Items.\nORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT\nItems 1(e) and 9 in the Notice alleged other inadequacies in Tesoro’s IMP and proposed to\nrequire that Respondent amend its procedures to comply with the requirements of 49 C.F.R. §\n195.452.\nItem 1(e) in the Notice alleged that Tesoro’s IMP procedures were inadequate because they did\nnot consider all of the risk factors that reflect the risk conditions on the pipeline. Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that Tesoro’s IMP procedures did not include a “sensitivity analysis” that\nconsidered a wide range of pipeline break sizes and response times. The Notice alleged that\nwithout an analysis that considered a variety of break scenarios and the extent to which spills\ncould spread, Tesoro could not properly determine the potential effects of different size spills or\nproduce a sufficiently conservative evaluation of their effects on HCAs. In its Response, Tesoro\nindicated that it would make changes to its IMP procedure after further analysis.\n\n\n\n9\nItem 9 in the Notice alleged that Tesoro’s IMP procedures were inadequate because they did not\ndiscuss how data from inspections and tests required under Part 195 (e.g., cathodic protection\nsurvey data) would be used in establishing pipeline reassessment intervals. Although\nRespondent submitted amended procedures on January 7, 2005, they still do not address all of\nthe inadequacies described in the Notice.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent’s IMP procedures are inadequate to assure safe operation of\nits pipeline system. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.237, Respondent is\nordered to make the following changes to its procedures. Respondent must—\n1. Regarding Item 1(e), amend its IMP procedures to conduct a sensitivity analysis that\nconsiders a wide range of pipeline break sizes and response times. Use the results to\ndetermine predicted spill volumes and spread extents to ensure that potential spill impacts\nare evaluated conservatively enough to provide adequate protection for HCAs.\n2. Regarding Item 9, amend its IMP procedures to integrate data from inspections and tests\nrequired under Part 195 into its IMP, such that these data are analyzed along with other\nassessment data when establishing assessment intervals.\n3. Submit the amended procedures to the Director within 30 days following receipt of this\nOrder.\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.\nFailure to comply with this Order Directing Amendment may result in administrative assessment\nof civil penalties not to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues\nor in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1(f), 2(a), 2(b), 5(c), and 10, the Notice alleged probable violations of\nPart 195 but did not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these\nare considered to be warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(e)(1)(iv) (Notice Item 1(f)) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure\nto conduct an air dispersion analysis for potential impacts on HCAs for most of its\npipelines. In its Response, Respondent indicated that it believed it did not need to\nperform such analyses on its pipelines because they were not transporting highly\nvolatile liquids (HVLs). Respondent is incorrect. Air dispersion can be a\nsignificant transport mechanism for certain components (hydrogen sulfide,\nbenzene, etc.) of crude and refined products with vapor pressures too high to\nqualify as HVLs.5\n5 At atmospheric pressure, these components vaporize readily and can be transported at hazardous concentrations\nfor significant distances. For these commodities, use of a conservative air dispersion analysis technique is important\nfor determining the segments that could affect a HCA, as well as determining the extent of the consequences in the\nevent of a release.\n\n\n\n10\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(c)(1)(i) (Notice Item 2(a)) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure\nto specify or justify in its Baseline Assessment Plan (BAP) the choice of\nassessment methods to be used for each pipeline section.\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(c)(2) (Notice Item 2(b)) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to\ninclude a process for revising its BAP.\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(e)(1) (Notice Item 5(c)) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to\nhave a process for populating its risk model data fields using available records\nand input from Tesoro’s subject matter experts.\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l)(1)(ii) (Notice Item 10) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to\nidentify the documents to be retained from the segment identification process and\ntheir retention period.\nRespondent presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited items. Having considered such information, I find, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. §\n190.205, that probable violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.452(c)(1)(i) (Notice Item 2(a)), 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(c)(2) (Notice Item 2(b)), 195.452(e)(1) (Notice Item 5(c)), and 195.452(l)(1)(ii)\n(Notice Item 10) have occurred and Respondent is hereby advised to correct such conditions. In\nthe event that OPS finds a violation for any of these items in a subsequent inspection,\nRespondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent’s receipt of this\nFinal Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. All other terms of the order,\nincluding any required corrective action and amendment of procedures, shall remain in full force\nand effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and\nconditions of this Final Order shall be effective upon receipt.\n____________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":32036}