{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520080006M","title":"TESORO REFINING & MARKETING COMPANY, LLC — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2008-03-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 192.903, 192.905(a), 192.905(b)(1), 192.917, 192.935(a), 192.935(b)(1), 192.937.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520080006m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520080006m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520080006m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520080006M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving TESORO REFINING & MARKETING COMPANY, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.903,  192.905(a),  192.905(b)(1),  192.917,  192.935(a),  192.935(b)(1),  192.937. The case was opened on 2008-03-13 and is reported as closed as of 2009-02-10. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520080006M_notice of amendment_03132008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520080006M/520080006M_notice%20of%20amendment_03132008.pdf\n\n520080006m_notice of amendment_03132008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520080006M/520080006m_notice%20of%20amendment_03132008_text.pdf\n\n520080006M_operator response_08212008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520080006M/520080006M_operator%20response_08212008.pdf\n\n520080006m_notice of amendment_03132008_text.pdf\n\nSENT TO COMPLIANCE REGIS Y\nHardcopy +ctroTtiC y\nii of Copiers +I Date ~ I p ii\nU. S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration\n12300 W Dakota Ave, Suite 110\nLakewood, CO 80228\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\nMarch 13, 2008\nMr. John W. Moore\nV. P. Pipelines, Terminals, Trucking, and Rail (PTTR)\nTesoro Los Angeles Refinery\n2101 E Pacific Coast Highway\nWilmington, CA, 90748\nCPF 5-2008-0006M\nDear Mr. Moore:\nOn December 17 through December 20, 2007, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code\ninspected your Integrity Management Program in Los Angeles, California.\nOn the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within\nTesoro's plans and procedures, as described below:\nHCA Identification\n$192. 905 How does an operator identify a high consequence area?\n(a) General. To determine which segments of an operator's transmission pipeline\nsystem are covered by this subpart, an operator must identify the high consequence\nareas. An operator must use method (1) or (2) from the definition in g 192. 903 to\nidentify a high consequence area. An operator may apply one method to its entire\npipeline system, or an operator may apply one method to individual portions of the\npipeline system. An operator must describe in its integrity management program\nwhich method it is applying to each portion of the operator's pipeline system. The\ndescription must include the potential impact radius when utilized to establish a\n\n\n\nhigh consequence area. (See appendix E. I. for guidance on identifying high\nconsequence areas. )\n(b)(1) Identified sites. An operator must identify an identified site, for purposes of\nthis subpart, from information the operator has obtained from routine operation\nand maintenance activities and from public officials with safety or emergency\nresponse or planning responsibilities who indicate to the operator that they know of\nlocations that meet the identified site criteria. These public officials could include\nofficials on a local emergency planning commission or relevant Native American\ntribal officials.\n(2) If a public official with safety or emergency response or planning\nresponsibilities informs an operator that it does not have the information to identify\nan identified site, the operator must use one of the following sources, as\nappropriate, to identify these sites.\n(i) Visible marking (e. g. ,\na sign); or\n(ii) The site is licensed or registered by a Federal, State, or local government\nagency; or\n(iii) The site is on a list (including a list on an internet web site) or map maintained\nby or available from a Federal, State, or local government agency and available to\nthe general public.\n(c) Newly identified areas. When an operator has information that the area\naround a pipeline segment not previously identified as a high consequence area\ncould satisfy any of the definitions in f 192. 903, the operator must complete the\nevaluation using method (1) or (2). If the segment is determined to meet the\ndefinition as a high consequence area, it must be incorporated into the operator's\nbaseline assessment plan as a high consequence area within one year from the date\nthe area is identified.\n$192. 905 How does an operator identify a high consequence area?\n$192. 903 What definitions apply to this subpart?\nHigh consequence area (HCA) means an area established by one of the methods\ndescribed in paragraphs (1) or (2) as follows:\n(1) An area defined as-\n(i) A Class 3 location under $192. 5; or\n(ii) A Class 4 location under f192. 5; or\n(iii) Any area in a Class 1 or Class 2 location where the potential impact radius is\ngreater than 660 feet (200 meters), and the area within a potential impact circle\ncontains 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy; or\n(iv) Any area in a Class 1 or Class 2 location where the potential impact circle\ncontains an identified site.\n\n\n\n(2) The area within a potential impact circle containing-\n(i) 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy, unless the exception in\nparagraph (4) applies; or\n(ii) An identified site.\n(3) Where a potential impact circle is calculated under either method (1) or (2) to\nestablish a high consequence area, the length of the high consequence area extends\naxially along the length of the pipeline from the outermost edge of the first potential\nimpact circle that contains either an identified site or 20 or more buildings intended\nfor human occupancy to the outermost edge of the last contiguous potential impact\ncircle that contains either an identified site or 20 or more buildings intended for\nhuman occupancy. (See Figure E. I. A. in Appendix E. )\n(4) If in identifying a high consequence area under paragraph (1)(iii) of this\ndefinition or paragraph (2)(i) of this definition, the radius of the potential impact\ncircle is greater than 660 feet (200 meters), the operator may identify a high\nconsequence area based on a prorated number of buildings intended for human\noccupancy with a distance of 660 feet (200 meters) from the centerline of the\npipeline until December 17, 2006. If an operator chooses this approach, the\noperator must prorate the number of buildings intended for human occupancy\nbased on the ratio of an area with a radius of 660 feet (200 meters) to the area of the\npotential impact circle (i. e.\n,\nthe prorated number of buildings intended for human\noccupancy is equal to 20 x (660 feet) [or 200 meters]/potential impact radius in feet\n[or meters]**2).\nIdentified site means each of the following areas:\n(a) An outside area or open structure that is occupied by twenty (20) or more\npersons on at least 50 days in any twelve (12)-month period. (The days need not be\nconsecutive. ) Examples include but are not limited to, beaches, playgrounds,\nrecreational facilities, camping grounds, outdoor theaters, stadiums, recreational\nareas near a body of water, or areas outside a rural building such as a religious\nfacility; or\n(b) A building that is occupied by twenty (20) or more persons on at least five (5)\ndays a week for ten (10) weeks in any twelve (12)- month period. (The days and\nweeks need not be consecutive. ) Examples include, but are not limited to, religious\nfacilities, office buildings, community centers, general stores, 4-H facilities, or roller\nskating rinks; or\n(c) A facility occupied by persons who are confined, are of impaired mobility, or\nwould be difficult to evacuate. Examples include but are not limited to hospitals,\nprisons, schools, day-care facilities, retirement facilities or assisted-living facilities.\nPotential impact circle is a circle of radius equal to the potential impact radius\n(PIR).\n\n\n\nPotential impact radius (PIR) means the radius of a circle within which the\npotential failure of a pipeline could have significant impact on people or property.\nPIR is determined by the formula r = 0. 69* (square root of (p*d Q)), where 'r' is\nthe radius of a circular area in feet surrounding the point of failure, 'p' is the\nmaximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) in the pipeline segment in pounds\nper square inch and 'd' is the nominal diameter of the pipeline in inches.\n~ Item 1A: $192. 905(a)\nTesoro's High Consequence Area (HCA) identification process does not document the\nmethod used to identify HCAs.\n~ Item 1B: $192. 903\nThe calculations performed by Tesoro's consultant, SECOR, to determine the potential\nimpact radius (PIR) appear to use a value for the pipe diameter of 10. 52 inches, while\nthe Tesoro IMP states that the pipe outside diameter is 10. 75 inches. This results in a\nlower PIR.\n~ Item 1C: $192. 905(b)(1)\nThe Tesoro HCA identification results do not indicate whether high consequence areas\nthat were identified include the area extending axially along the length of the pipeline\nfrom the outermost edge of the first potential impact circle to the outermost edge of the\nlast contiguous potential impact circle.\n~ Item 1D: $192. 905(a) and $192. 905(b)(1)A(2)\nThe Tesoro HCA identification does not include a systematic identification of potential\nidentified sites in the vicinity of the pipeline. The HCA identification did not include\nconsideration of the \"Coke Barn\" facility as an identified site, even though the site\noccupancy may meet the criteria for an identified site.\nRisk Assessment\n$192. 917 How does an operator identify potential threats to pipeline integrity and\nuse the threat identification in its integrity program?\n(a) Threat identification. An operator must identify and evaluate all potential\nthreats to each covered pipeline segment. Potential threats that an operator must\nconsider include, but are not limited to, the threats listed in ASME/ANSI B31. 8S\n(ibr, see $192. 7), section 2, which are as follows:\n(1) Time dependent threats such as internal corrosion, external corrosion, and\nstress corrosion cracking;\n(2) Static or resident threats, such as fabrication or construction defects;\n\n\n\n(3) Time independent threats such as third party damage and outside force\ndamage; and\n(4) Human error.\n(b) Data gathering and integration. To identify and evaluate the potential threats\nto a covered pipeline segment, an operator must gather and integrate existing data\nand information on the entire pipeline that could be relevant to the covered\nsegment. In performing this data gathering and integration, an operator must\nfollow the requirements in ASME/ANSI B31. SS, section 4. At a minimum, an\noperator must gather and evaluate the set of data specified in Appendix A to\nASME/ANSI B31. SS, and consider both on the covered segment and similar non-\ncovered segments, past incident history, corrosion control records, continuing\nsurveillance records, patrolling records, maintenance history, internal inspection\nrecords and all other conditions specific to each pipeline.\n(c) Risk assessment. An operator must conduct a risk assessment that follows\nASME/ANSI B31. SS, section 5, and considers the identified threats for each\ncovered segment. An operator must use the risk assessment to prioritize the\ncovered segments for the baseline and continual reassessments ($/192. 919, 192. 921,\n192. 937), and to determine what additional preventive and mitigative measures are\nneeded ($192. 935) for the covered segment.\nThe Tesoro IMP does not document the risk assessment process that will be used in\nfuture risk assessments. A risk assessment is needed to set priorities for integrity\nassessments and it is required to support evaluation of preventive and mitigative\nmeasures. Current documentation is from a Shell risk assessment process was last\nimplemented in 2004. Potential errors were found in the risk scorecard evaluation that\nwas part of the risk assessment at that time. IMP Section 3 does not indicate what risk\nassessment process will be conducted in the future.\n3. Reassessment Intervals\n$192. 937 What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to maintain a\npipeline's integrity?\n(a) General. After completing the baseline integrity assessment of a covered\nsegment, an operator must continue to assess the line pipe of that segment at the\nintervals specified in g 192. 939 and periodically evaluate the integrity of each\ncovered pipeline segment as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. An operator\nmust reassess a covered segment on which a prior assessment is credited as a\nbaseline under g 192. 921(e) by no later than December 17, 2009. An operator must\nreassess a covered segment on which a baseline assessment is conducted during the\nbaseline period specified in g 192, 921(d) by no later than seven years after the\nbaseline assessment of that covered segment unless the evaluation under paragraph\n(b) of this section indicates earlier reassessment.\n\n\n\n(b) Evaluation. An operator must conduct a periodic evaluation as frequently as\nneeded to assure the integrity of each covered segment. The periodic evaluation\nmust be based on a data integration and risk assessment of the entire pipeline as\nspecified in g 192. 917. For plastic transmission pipelines, the periodic evaluation is\nbased on the threat analysis specified in g 192. 917(d) For all other transmission\npipelines, the evaluation must consider the past and present integrity assessment\nresults, data integration and risk assessment information (g 192. 917), and decisions\nabout remediation (g 192. 933) and additional preventive and mitigative actions (g\n192. 935). An operator must use the results from this evaluation to identify the\nthreats specific to each covered segment and the risk represented by these threats.\nThe assumed corrosion growth rate used to obtain the seven year reassessment interval is\nnot conservative. The corrosion growth analysis assumes a corrosion half life of 39\nyears. This is not consistent with NACE defaults and predicts slower corrosion growth\nthan would be obtained using these default figures. Tesoro does not offer a basis for\nmaking these more optimistic assumptions.\nPreventive and Mitigative Measures\n$192, 911 What are the elements of an integrity management program?\n(h) Provisions meeting the requirements of $192. 935 for adding preventive and\nmitigative measures to protect the high consequence area.\n$192. 935\n(a) General requirements. An operator must take additional measures beyond\nthose already required by Part 192 to prevent a pipeline failure and to mitigate the\nconsequences of a pipeline failure in a high consequence area. An operator must\nbase the additional measures on the threats the operator has identified to each\npipeline segment. (See $192. 917) An operator must conduct, in accordance with\none of the risk assessment approaches in ASME/ANSI B31. 8S (ibr, see $192. 7),\nsection 5, a risk analysis of its pipeline to identify additional measures to protect the\nhigh consequence area and enhance public safety. Such additional measures\ninclude, but are not limited to, installing Automatic Shut-off Valves or Remote\nControl Valves, installing computerized monitoring and leak detection systems,\nreplacing pipe segments with pipe of heavier wall thickness, providing additional\ntraining to personnel on response procedures, conducting drills with local\nemergency responders and implementing additional inspection and maintenance\nprograms.\n\n\n\n(b) Third party damage and outside force damage—\n(1) Third party damage. An operator must enhance its damage prevention\nprogram, as required under $192. 614 of this part, with respect to a covered\nsegment to prevent and minimize the consequences of a release due to third party\ndamage. Enhanced measures to an existing damage prevention program include, at\na minimum—\n(i) Using qualified personnel (see g 192. 915) for work an operator is conducting\nthat could adversely affect the integrity of a covered segment, such as marking,\nlocating, and direct supervision of known excavation work.\n(ii) Collecting in a central database information that is location specific on\nexcavation damage that occurs in covered and non covered segments in the\ntransmission system and the root cause analysis to support identification of\ntargeted additional preventative and mitigative measures in the high consequence\nareas. This information must include recognized damage that is not required to be\nreported as an incident under part 191.\n(iii) Participating in one-call systems in locations where covered segments are\npresent.\n(iv) Monitoring of excavations conducted on covered pipeline segments by pipeline\npersonnel. If an operator finds physical evidence of encroachment involving\nexcavation that the operator did not monitor near a covered segment, an operator\nmust either excavate the area near the encroachment or conduct an above ground\nsurvey using methods defined in NACE RP-0502-2002 (incorporated by reference,\nsee $192. 7). An operator must excavate, and remediate, in accordance with\nANSI/ASME B31. SS and $192. 933 any indication of coating holidays or\ndiscontinuity warranting direct examination.\n(2) Outside force damage. If an operator determines that outside force (e. g. ,\nearth\nmovement, floods, unstable suspension bridge) is a threat to the integrity of a\ncovered segment, the operator must take measures to minimize the consequences to\nthe covered segment from outside force damage. These measures include, but are\nnot limited to, increasing the frequency of aerial, foot or other methods of patrols,\nadding external protection, reducing external stress, and relocating the line.\n(c) Automatic shut-off valves (ASV) or Remote control valves (RCV). If an\noperator determines, based on a risk analysis, that an ASV or RCV would be an\nefficient means of adding protection to a high consequence area in the event of a gas\nrelease, an operator must install the ASV or RCV. In making that determination,\nan operator must, at least, consider the following factors — swiftness of leak\ndetection and pipe shutdown capabilities, the type of gas being transported,\noperating pressure, the rate of potential release, pipeline profile, the potential for\nignition, and location of nearest response personnel.\n\n\n\n(d) Pipelines operating below 30'/o SMYS. An operator of a transmission pipeline\noperating below 30 lo SMYS located in a high consequence area must follow the\nrequirements in paragraphs (d)(l) and (d)(2) of this section. An operator of a\ntransmission pipeline operating below 30'/o SMYS located in a Class 3 or Class 4\narea but not in a high consequence area must follow the requirements in\nparagraphs (d)(1), (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this section\n(1) Apply the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(iii) of this section to\nthe pipeline; and\n(2) Either monitor excavations near the pipeline, or conduct patrols as required by\ng 192. 705 of the pipeline at bi-monthly intervals. If an operator finds any indication\nof unreported construction activity, the operator must conduct a follow up\ninvestigation to determine if mechanical damage has occurred.\n(3) Perform semi-annual leak surveys (quarterly for unprotected pipelines or\ncathodically protected pipe where electrical surveys are impractical).\n(e) Plastic transmission pipeline. An operator of a plastic transmission pipeline\nmust apply the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(1)(iv) of this\nsection to the covered segments of the pipeline.\n~ Item 4A: $192. 935(a)\nThe Tesoro IMP process for evaluation of preventive and mitigative measure is not\ndefined adequately A risk assessment was conducted in 2004, but this was performed\nusing Shell pipeline approach that is not the approach that is intended to be used in the\nfuture.\n~ Item 4B: $192. 935(b)(1)\nThe Tesoro IMP does not require the preventive and mitigative evaluation to consider\nthe alternatives specified in 192. 935(a). It is not clear what alternatives were considered\nin the risk assessment completed in 2004.\n~ Item 4C: $192. 935(a)\nThe Tesoro IMP does not document a systematic decision-making process to decide\nwhich measures are to be implemented, considering both the likelihood and\nconsequences for pipeline failures.\nRes onse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U, S. C. $ 60108(a) and 49 C. F. R. g 190. 237. Enclosed as\npart of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nCompliance ProceeCkngs. 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 believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies\nfor confidential treatment under 5 U. S. C. 552(b), along with the complete original document\n\n\n\nyou must 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.\nIf, after opportunity for a hearing, your plans or procedures are found inadequate as alleged in\nthis Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans or procedures to correct the inadequacies\n(49 C. F. R. $ 190. 237). If you are not contesting this Notice, we propose that you submit your\namended procedures to my office within 30 days of receipt of this Notice. This period may be\nextended by written request for good cause. Once the inadequacies identified herein have been\naddressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement action will be closed.\nIn correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2008-0006M and, for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely~\n's Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipehne and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 J. Gilliam (¹120054)\nBernadette Frieh, PTTR Environmental Compliance Manager\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipehne Operators in Comphance Proceedings","truncated":false,"body_characters":22170}