{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520080002","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":"2008-01-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.903, 192.905(a), 192.905(b), 192.905(c), 192.911, 192.911(i), 192.945(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520080002.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520080002.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520080002","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520080002","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.903,  192.905(a),  192.905(b),  192.905(c),  192.911,  192.911(i),  192.945(a). The case was opened on 2008-01-28 and is reported as closed as of 2010-03-15. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520080002_Final Order_03152010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520080002/520080002_Final%20Order_03152010_text.pdf\n\n520080002_FinalOrder_03152010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520080002/520080002_FinalOrder_03152010.pdf\n\n520080002_NOPV PCO letter_01282008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520080002/520080002_NOPV%20PCO%20letter_01282008.pdf\n\n520080002_nopv pco letter_01282008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520080002/520080002_nopv%20pco%20letter_01282008_text.pdf\n\n520080002_operator response_02282008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520080002/520080002_operator%20response_02282008.pdf\n\n520080002_nopv pco letter_01282008_text.pdf\n\nSENI TO COMI'I. IA¹E REGIS\nHardcopy Electroruca ly\n4 nf Coptes+I Date l-\nU. S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration\nt2300 W Dakota Ave, Suite t10\nLakewood, CO 80228\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\nJanuary 28, 2008\nMr. Kevin Hostler\nPresident & CEO\nAlyeska Pipeline Service Company\n900 East Benson Boulevard\nAnchorage, AK 99508\nCPF 5-2008-0002\nDear Mr. Hostler.\nOn September 10 to 11, 2007, a representative of the Pipehne and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected Alyeska\nPipeline Service Company's (APSC) Fuel Gas Line (FGL) integrity management procedures in\nFairbanks, Alaska.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipehne Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations The items inspected and the\nprobable violations are:\n1. $192. 911 What are the elements of an integrity management program?\nAn operator's initial integrity management program begins with a framework (see\n$192. 907) and evolves into a more detailed and comprehensive integrity\n\n\n\nmanagement program, as information is gained and incorporated into the program.\nAn operator must make continual improvements to its program. The initial\nprogram framework and subsequent program must, at minimum, contain the\nfollowing elements. (When indicated, refer to ASME/ANSI B31. 8S (incorporated by\nreference, see $192. 7) for more detailed information on the listed element. )\n(p) A process for identification and assessment of newly-identiTied high\nconsequence areas. (See $192. 905 and $192. 921. )\n~ Item 1. A: $192. 905(a) and $192. 905(b)\nAPSC does not have an integrity management process for identifying high consequence\nareas (HCAs) associated with their Fuel Gas Lme (FGL). A process for identifying\nHCAs is needed to ensure consistency during periodic checks by an operator for newly\nidentified HCAs. This process must ensure that responsible personnel are informed of\nchanges to the pipehne or the area surrounding the pipehne. The process will also ensure\nthat a timely HCA determination due to those changes.\n~ Item 1. B: $192. 903\nAPSC's procedures for their FGL does not contain a process detaihng how the Potential\nImpact Radius (PIR) is to be apphed to the FGL to determine if the FGL has an HCA. A\nwritten process for determinmg the PIR of a pipehne is required to ensure consistency in\nthe apphcation of the PIR to an operator's pipehne throughout the life of the pipeline.\n~ Item 1. C: $192. 905(c)\nAPSC does not have a process or procedure for their FGL that contains a description and\ntime hne for actions to be taken as soon as an HCA is identified A process or procedure\ndescribmg actions to be taken when an HCA is identified and the timehne for completmg\nthose actions is required to ensure an operator takes consistent, appropriate and timely\nactions once an HCA is identified.\n$192. 911 What are the elements of an integrity management program?\n(i) A performance plan as outlined in ASMK/ANSI B31. 8S, section 9 that includes\nperformance measures meeting the requirements of g 192. 945\nAPSC has no integrity management procedure for submitting semi-annual reviews to\nreflect that no new HCAs have been created along their FGL. Additionally, APSC has no\nprocess for submitting the four overall performance measures for HCAs specified in\nASME/ANSI B31. 8S, section 9. 4, and the specific measures for each identified threat\nspecified in ASME/ANSI B31. 8S, Appendix A, should an HCA be created along any\nFGL segment An operator is required to submit semi-annual reviews of their pipelines'\nintegrity management activities, which includes reporting that there are no newly-created\nHCAs A procedure that requires semi-annual reporting is required to ensure that an\noperator makes these reports consistently and on time. Additionally this process must\n\n\n\ninclude enough detail to permit operator personnel to adequately report performance\nmeasures semi-annually if or when an HCA is determined.\n$192. 945 What methods must an operator use to measure program effectiveness?\n(a) General. An operator must include in its integrity management program\nmethods to measure, on a semi-annual basis, whether the program is effective in\nassessing and evaluating the integrity of each covered pipeline segment and in\nprotecting the high consequence areas. These measures must include the four\noverall performance measures specified in ASME/ANSI B31. 8S (incorporated by\nreference, see $192. 7), section 9. 4, and the specific measures for each identified\nthreat specified in ASME/ANSI B31. 8S, Appendix A. An operator must submit the\nfour overall performance measures, by electronic or other means, on a semi-annual\nfrequency to OPS in accordance with $192. 951. An operator must submit its first\nreport on overall performance measures by August 31, 2004. Thereafter, the\nperformance measures must be complete through June 30 and December 31 of each\nyear and must be submitted within 2 months after those dates.\nAPSC failed to submit their initial semi-annual performance measures report to PHMSA\nbeginnmg on August 31, 2004. Additionally APSC filed their next five semi-annual\nperformance measures reports in late March 2007. The result was that APSC's March 1,\n2005 report was 25 months late; the August 30, 2005 report was 19 months late; the\nMarch 2006 report was 13 months late; the August 2006 report was 7 months late; and\nthe March 1, 2007 report was late by /2 month. Though an operator may have not\nHCA's, they are still required to report on a semi-annual basis that they do not have\nHCA's to which performance measures can be apphed.\nWarnin Items\nWith respect to Item 3 we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved\nin this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment\nproceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct this item. Be advised that failure to\ndo so may result in APSC being subject to additional enforcement action.\nPro osed Com hance Order\nWith respect to Items 1. A, 1. B, 1. C and 2, pursuant to 49 United States Code ) 60118, the\nPipehne and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order\nto APSC. Please refer to the Proposed Comphance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of\nthis Notice.\nRes onse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipehne Operators\nin Comphance Proceedings Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be\nadvised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being\nmade publicly available. If you beheve that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\n\n\n\nconfidential treatment under 5 U. S. C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U. S. C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days\nof receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in\nthis Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2008-0002 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSmcerely,\nChris oidal\nDirector, Western\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Comphance Registry\nPHP-500 G Davis (¹119571)\nEnclosures. Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code ) 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Alyeska Pipeline Service Company a Comphance\nOrder incorporating the followmg remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of APSC with\nthe pipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regard to Item Number 1. A of the Notice pertaining to a process for identifying HCAs:\nAPSC must develop and adopt a procedure for identifying HCAs during periodic checks\nby operator personnel This process must ensure that responsible personnel are informed\nof changes to the pipehne or the area surroundmg the pipehne. The process will also\nensure that a timely HCA determination due to those changes.\nProvide the new procedure to the Director, Western Region.\n2. In regard to Item Number 1. B of the Notice pertaining to procedure that details how the\nPotential Impact Radius (PIR) is to be apphed to the FGL'\nAPSC must develop and adopt a procedure that details how the Potential Impact Radius\n(PIR) is to be apphed to the FGL to determine if the FGL has an HCA.\nProvide the new procedure to the Director, Western Region.\n3. In regard to Item Number 1. C of the Notice pertaining to a process or procedure\ndescribmg actions to be taken when an HCA is identified;\nAPSC must develop and adopt a procedure that describes actions to be taken when and\nHCA is identified which includes the timeline for completing those actions once an HCA\nis identified\nProvide the new procedure to the Director, Western Region.\n4 In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertainmg to a procedure for review of integrity\nmanagement performance measures and the semi-annual reportmg of performance\nmeasures\nAPSC must develop a procedure with provisions for reportmg that no HCAs have been\nidentified. The procedure must include provisions that direct personnel to review of the\nFGL integrity management performance measures effectiveness, once HCAs have been\ndetermmed This procedure must require that these reports be submitted on a semi-\nannual basis for time periods January 1 through June 30, and July 1 through December 31\nof each year. These semi-annual reports must be submitted within two (2) months after\nthose dates\n\n\n\nProvide the new procedure to the Director, Western Region.\n5. APSC must complete the above items 30 days after receipt of the Final Order.\n6. APSC shall mamtain docinnentation of the safety improvement costs associated with\nfulfillmg this Comphance Order and submit the total to Chris Hoidal, Director, Western\nRegion, Pipehne and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Costs shall be reported\nm two categories 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures,\nstudies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other\nchanges to pipehne mfrastructure.\n\n520080002_FinalOrder_03152010.pdf\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E.\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nSafety Administration\nMAR 1 5 2010\nMr. Kevin Hostler\nPresident & Chief Executive Officer\nAlyeska Pipeline Service Company\n900 East Benson Boulevard\nAnchorage, AK 99508\nRe: CPF No. 5-2008-0002\nDear Mr. Hostler:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and finds that Alyeska Pipeline Service Company has completed the actions specified\nn the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. It also issues your company :\nvarning for another probable violation and advises you to correct that condition. This case i\nnow closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of\nmailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAbouT Migh\nfor-\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\nCC:\nMr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7009 1410 0000 2472 52171\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\nAlyeska Pipeline Service\nCPF No. 5-2008-0002\nCompany,\nRespondent.\nFINAL ORDER\nOn September 10 to 11, 2007, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Alyeska Pipeline\nService Company (Alyeska or Respondent) in Fairbanks, Alaska. Alyeska is the operator of the\nTrans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), an 800-mile-long hazardous liquid pipeline system that\ntransports crude oil from production facilities in Prudhoe Bay to a marine terminal in Valdez,\nAlaska.' Respondent also operates a 148-mile-long natural gas pipeline system, the facility\nsubject to the September 2007 OPS inspection.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to Alyeska,\nby letter dated January 28, 2008, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order\n(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent\nhad committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed ordering the company to\ntake certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed finding that\nRespondent had committed another probable violation of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and warning it to\ntake appropriate corrective action to address this item or be subject to future enforcement action.\nAlyeska responded to the Notice by letter dated February 28, 2008 (Response). Respondent did\nnot contest the allegations of violation covered by the proposed compliance order but provided\ninformation concerning the corrective actions it had taken. Alyeska did, however, dispute the\nallegation of violation that led to the proposed warning. Respondent did not request a hearing\nand therefore has waived its right to one.\n'http://www.alyeska-pipe.com (accessed on Feb. 14, 2010).\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Alyeska did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911(p), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.911 What are the elements of an integrity management\nprogram?\nAn operator's initial integrity management program begins with a\nframework (see § 192.907) and evolves into a more detailed and\ncomprehensive integrity management program, as information is gained\nand incorporated into the program. An operator must make continual\nimprovements to its program. The initial program framework and\nsubsequent program must, at a minimum, contain the following elements.\n(When indicated, refer to ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by\nreference, see § 192.7) for more detailed information on the listed\nelement.)\n(a)....\n(p) A process for identification and assessment of newly-identified\nhigh consequence areas. (See § 192.905 and 192.921).\nSpecifically, Item 1A of the Notice alleged that Alyeska violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911 (p) by\nfailing to have a process for identifying high consequence areas (HCAs) along its fuel gas line,\nas further required under § 192.905(a) and (b). Respondent did not contest this allegation of\nviolation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Alyeska violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.911(p), which incorporates by reference 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(a) and (b).\nLikewise, Item 1B of the Notice alleged that Alyeska also violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911(p) by\nfailing to have a written procedure for applying the potential impact radius method to determine\nif an HCA would be affected by a failure on the company's fuel gas line. This requirement is\nlisted in § 192.903 and incorporated by reference into § 192.911(p). Respondent did not contest\nthis allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that\nAlyeska violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911(p), which incorporates by reference 49 C.F.R. § 192.903,\nby failing to have a written procedure for applying the potential impact radius method to\ndetermine if an HCA would be affected by a failure of its fuel gas line.\nFinally, Item 1C of the Notice alleged that Alyeska violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911(p) by failing to\nhave a written procedure for the actions that must be taken if a new HCA is identified. This\nprocedure is required by § 192.905 (c), which is incorporated by reference into § 192.911(p), and\nmust be followed to ensure that personnel take timely action in addressing new HCAs.\n\n\n\n3\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Alyeska violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911 (p), which incorporates by\nreference the requirement in 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(c) to have a written procedure for the actions\nthat must be taken if a new HCA is identified.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911(i), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.911\nWhat are the elements of an integrity management\nprogram?\nAn operator's initial integrity management program begins with a\nframework (see § 192.907) and evolves into a more detailed and\ncomprehensive integrity management program, as information is gained\nand incorporated into the program. An operator must make continual\nimprovements to its program.\nThe initial program framework and\nsubsequent program must, at a minimum, contain the following elements.\n(When\nindicated, refer\nto ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by\nreference, see § 192.7) for more detailed information on the listed\nelement.)\n(a)....\n(i) A performance plan as outlined in ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 9\nthat includes performance measures meeting the requirements of\n§ 192.945.\nIn particular, the Notice alleged that Alyeska violated 49 C.F.R. 192.911(i) by failing to have a\nThis requirement is outlined in detail in § 192.945 and incorporated by reference into\nwritten procedure for submitting semi-annual reviews of its integrity management activities.\nsemi-annual basis to determine if it is effective. Respondent did not contest this allegation of\nviolation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911(i) by failing to have a written procedure for submitting semi-annual\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. § 192.911. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\n\n\n\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director has indicated that\nRespondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance order:\nIn response to Item 1, Alyeska submitted written procedures for identifying an HCA on its\nfuel gas line, applying the potential impact radius method, and describing the actions that\nmust be taken once an HCA is identified.\nIn response to Item 2, Alyeska supplied written procedures for submitting semi-annual\nreviews of its integrity management activities.\nThe Director has reviewed these written procedures and supporting documentation and\ndetermined that they are sufficient to comply with the Gas Transmission Pipeline Integrity\nManagement requirements of Subpart O.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations.\nTherefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 3, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 192 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, it is considered to be a warning item.\nThe warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.945(a) (Item 3) — Respondent's alleged failure to file the\ncompany's first semi-annual integrity management report for its fuel gas line on\nor before August 31, 2004, the applicable regulatory deadline, and its alleged\nfailure to file its next five semi-annual reports for that line on or before the\napplicable regulatory deadlines.\nIn its Response, Alyeska disputed these allegations and stated that the company had in fact filed\nthese reports. Respondent also stated that it had contacted Roger Little, PHMSA's Director of\nInformation and Analysis, after receiving notification that these reports were missing. According\nto Alyeska, Mr. Little told the company that PHMSA lost its reports during a database failure.\nAlyeska also submitted several supporting documents, including a written receipt showing that\nRespondent had submitted its semi-annual report for the January 1 to June 30, 2005 reporting\nperiod on September 27, 2005. Alyeska also submitted email records showing that the company\nhad allegedly re-submitted its reports for the periods ending December 31, 2004, June 30, 2005,\nDecember 31, 2005, and June 30, 2006, respectively, on March 28, 2007.\nRespondent's own evidence shows that its semi-annual report for the January 1 to June 30, 2005\nperiod was not timely filed——i.e., the written receipt confirms that this report was not submitted\nuntil September 27, 2005, several weeks after the applicable 2-month deadline. Alyeska also had\nno written procedure for filing these reports, which are required even if an operator has no\nHCAs, and PHMSA has no record of timely receiving the reports or experiencing a subsequent\n\n\n\n5\ndatabase failure. Accordingly, having considered such information, I find, pursuant to 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.205, that a probable violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.945(a) (Notice Item 3) occurred and\nRespondent is hereby advised to correct such conditions. In the event that OPS finds a violation\nof this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future\nenforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon receipt of service.\nMaut Water\nMAR 1 5 2010\nfor:\nJefirey D. Wiese\nDate Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n520080002_Final Order_03152010_text.pdf\n\nMAR 15 2010\nMr. Kevin Hostler\nPresident & Chief Executive Officer\nAlyeska Pipeline Service Company\n900 East Benson Boulevard\nAnchorage, AK 99508\nRe: CPF No. 5-2008-0002\nDear Mr. Hostler:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and finds that Alyeska Pipeline Service Company has completed the actions specified\nin the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. It also issues your company a\nwarning for another probable violation and advises you to correct that condition. This case is\nnow closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of\nmailing, or as otherwise provided 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: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7009 1410 0000 2472 5217]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n______________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nAlyeska Pipeline Service ) CPF No. 5-2008-0002\nCompany, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n______________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn September 10 to 11, 2007, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Alyeska Pipeline\nService Company (Alyeska or Respondent) in Fairbanks, Alaska. Alyeska is the operator of the\nTrans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), an 800-mile-long hazardous liquid pipeline system that\ntransports crude oil from production facilities in Prudhoe Bay to a marine terminal in Valdez,\nAlaska.1 Respondent also operates a 148-mile-long natural gas pipeline system, the facility\nsubject to the September 2007 OPS inspection.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to Alyeska,\nby letter dated January 28, 2008, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order\n(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent\nhad committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed ordering the company to\ntake certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed finding that\nRespondent had committed another probable violation of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and warning it to\ntake appropriate corrective action to address this item or be subject to future enforcement action.\nAlyeska responded to the Notice by letter dated February 28, 2008 (Response). Respondent did\nnot contest the allegations of violation covered by the proposed compliance order but provided\ninformation concerning the corrective actions it had taken. Alyeska did, however, dispute the\nallegation of violation that led to the proposed warning. Respondent did not request a hearing\nand therefore has waived its right to one.\n1 http://www.alyeska-pipe.com (accessed on Feb. 14, 2010).\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Alyeska did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911(p), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.911 What are the elements of an integrity management\nprogram?\nAn operator’s initial integrity management program begins with a\nframework (see § 192.907) and evolves into a more detailed and\ncomprehensive integrity management program, as information is gained\nand incorporated into the program. An operator must make continual\nimprovements to its program. The initial program framework and\nsubsequent program must, at a minimum, contain the following elements.\n(When indicated, refer to ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by\nreference, see § 192.7) for more detailed information on the listed\nelement.)\n(a) . . . .\n(p) A process for identification and assessment of newly-identified\nhigh consequence areas. (See § 192.905 and 192.921).\nSpecifically, Item 1A of the Notice alleged that Alyeska violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911(p) by\nfailing to have a process for identifying high consequence areas (HCAs) along its fuel gas line,\nas further required under § 192.905(a) and (b). Respondent did not contest this allegation of\nviolation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Alyeska violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.911(p), which incorporates by reference 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(a) and (b).\nLikewise, Item 1B of the Notice alleged that Alyeska also violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911(p) by\nfailing to have a written procedure for applying the potential impact radius method to determine\nif an HCA would be affected by a failure on the company’s fuel gas line. This requirement is\nlisted in § 192.903 and incorporated by reference into § 192.911(p). Respondent did not contest\nthis allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that\nAlyeska violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911(p), which incorporates by reference 49 C.F.R. § 192.903,\nby failing to have a written procedure for applying the potential impact radius method to\ndetermine if an HCA would be affected by a failure of its fuel gas line.\nFinally, Item 1C of the Notice alleged that Alyeska violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911(p) by failing to\nhave a written procedure for the actions that must be taken if a new HCA is identified. This\nprocedure is required by § 192.905(c), which is incorporated by reference into § 192.911(p), and\nmust be followed to ensure that personnel take timely action in addressing new HCAs.\n\n\n\n3\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Alyeska violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911(p), which incorporates by\nreference the requirement in 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(c) to have a written procedure for the actions\nthat must be taken if a new HCA is identified.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911(i), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.911 What are the elements of an integrity management\nprogram?\nAn operator’s initial integrity management program begins with a\nframework (see § 192.907) and evolves into a more detailed and\ncomprehensive integrity management program, as information is gained\nand incorporated into the program. An operator must make continual\nimprovements to its program. The initial program framework and\nsubsequent program must, at a minimum, contain the following elements.\n(When indicated, refer to ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by\nreference, see § 192.7) for more detailed information on the listed\nelement.)\n(a) . . . .\n(i) A performance plan as outlined in ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 9\nthat includes performance measures meeting the requirements of\n§ 192.945.\nIn particular, the Notice alleged that Alyeska violated 49 C.F.R. 192.911(i) by failing to have a\nwritten procedure for submitting semi-annual reviews of its integrity management activities.\nThis requirement is outlined in detail in § 192.945 and incorporated by reference into\n§ 192.911(i). It is important that an operator review its integrity management program on a\nsemi-annual basis to determine if it is effective. Respondent did not contest this allegation of\nviolation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911(i) by failing to have a written procedure for submitting semi-annual\nreviews of its integrity management activities.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. § 192.911. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\n\n\n\n4\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director has indicated that\nRespondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance order:\nIn response to Item 1, Alyeska submitted written procedures for identifying an HCA on its\nfuel gas line, applying the potential impact radius method, and describing the actions that\nmust be taken once an HCA is identified.\nIn response to Item 2, Alyeska supplied written procedures for submitting semi-annual\nreviews of its integrity management activities.\nThe Director has reviewed these written procedures and supporting documentation and\ndetermined that they are sufficient to comply with the Gas Transmission Pipeline Integrity\nManagement requirements of Subpart O.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations.\nTherefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 3, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 192 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, it is considered to be a warning item.\nThe warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.945(a) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to file the\ncompany’s first semi-annual integrity management report for its fuel gas line on\nor before August 31, 2004, the applicable regulatory deadline, and its alleged\nfailure to file its next five semi-annual reports for that line on or before the\napplicable regulatory deadlines.\nIn its Response, Alyeska disputed these allegations and stated that the company had in fact filed\nthese reports. Respondent also stated that it had contacted Roger Little, PHMSA’s Director of\nInformation and Analysis, after receiving notification that these reports were missing. According\nto Alyeska, Mr. Little told the company that PHMSA lost its reports during a database failure.\nAlyeska also submitted several supporting documents, including a written receipt showing that\nRespondent had submitted its semi-annual report for the January 1 to June 30, 2005 reporting\nperiod on September 27, 2005. Alyeska also submitted email records showing that the company\nhad allegedly re-submitted its reports for the periods ending December 31, 2004, June 30, 2005,\nDecember 31, 2005, and June 30, 2006, respectively, on March 28, 2007.\nRespondent’s own evidence shows that its semi-annual report for the January 1 to June 30, 2005\nperiod was not timely filed—i.e., the written receipt confirms that this report was not submitted\nuntil September 27, 2005, several weeks after the applicable 2-month deadline. Alyeska also had\nno written procedure for filing these reports, which are required even if an operator has no\nHCAs, and PHMSA has no record of timely receiving the reports or experiencing a subsequent\n\n\n\n5\ndatabase failure. Accordingly, having considered such information, I find, pursuant to 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.205, that a probable violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.945(a) (Notice Item 3) occurred and\nRespondent is hereby advised to correct such conditions. In the event that OPS finds a violation\nof this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future\nenforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon receipt of service.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":34804}