{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520082002","title":"UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA (UOCC) — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2008-09-10","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.150(a), 192.479(a), 192.605(a), 192.745(a), 192.749(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520082002.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520082002.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520082002","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520082002","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA (UOCC). PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.150(a),  192.479(a),  192.605(a),  192.745(a),  192.749(a). The case was opened on 2008-09-10 and is reported as closed as of 2011-03-16. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520082002_FinalOrder_03162011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520082002/520082002_FinalOrder_03162011.pdf\n\n520082002_FinalOrder_03162011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520082002/520082002_FinalOrder_03162011_text.pdf\n\n520082002_NOPV PCO_09102008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520082002/520082002_NOPV%20PCO_09102008.pdf\n\n520082002_nopv pco_09102008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520082002/520082002_nopv%20pco_09102008_text.pdf\n\n520082002_operator_response_10142008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520082002/520082002_operator_response_10142008.pdf\n\n520082002_FinalOrder_03162011_text.pdf\n\nMAR 16 2011\nMr. John Zager\nGeneral Manager, Alaska\nUnion Oil Company of California\n3800 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 100\nAnchorage, AK 99503\nRe: CPF No. 5-2008-2002\nDear Mr. Zager:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws two\nallegations of violation and issues Union Oil Company of California a warning item for a third\nallegation. Therefore, this case is now closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is\ndeemed effective upon the date of mailing, 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\nMr. Dennis Hinnah, Deputy Director, Western Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0041 3481]\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)\nUnion Oil Company of California, ) CPF No. 5-2008-2002\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom May 27 to 29, 2008, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Union Oil\nCompany of California (UNOCAL or Respondent) in Cook Inlet, Alaska. UNOCAL operates\nonshore and offshore gas and hazardous liquid pipeline facilities throughout the Cook Inlet.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated September 10, 2008, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that UNOCAL had violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed ordering Respondent to\ntake certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nUNOCAL responded to the Notice by letter dated October 14, 2008 (Response). The company\ncontested the allegations and offered additional information in response to the Notice.\nRespondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a), which states:\n§ 192.479 Atmospheric corrosion control: General.\na) Each operator must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of\npipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under\nparagraph (c) of this section.\n\n\n\n2\nThe Notice alleged that UNOCAL violated § 192.479(a) by failing to clean and coat pipelines\nsubject to atmospheric exposure. Specifically, the Notice alleged that UNOCAL’s Granite Point\nand Bruce platform pipelines had extensive coating damage, including a section of bare pipe, at\nthe point where they traverse the shoreline and are regularly exposed at low tide.\nIn its Response, UNOCAL stated that it had established an annual pipeline coating maintenance\nprogram for these pipelines, with repairs and remediation performed on a seasonal basis to\nnoted that the March 2008 OPS inspection occurred two months before that year’s “construction\nseason,” when any damaged pipelines in the area are scheduled for remediation; that the\ncompany had budgeted $500,000 for work during that season; and that it had fully remediated\nthe Granite Point and Bruce platform pipelines by May 2008.\naccommodate the area’s “extreme weather, ice, and tidal considerations.”1 UNOCAL further\nUNOCAL must ensure that any pipelines exposed to the atmosphere are cleaned and coated in a\ntimely fashion. Here, the undisputed evidence shows that the Granite Point and Bruce platform\npipelines had extensive coating damage in an area subject to atmospheric exposure, which\nindicates that timely cleaning and coating may not have occurred. More durable corrosion\ncoating also exists for pipelines that are installed in extreme operating conditions, and the record\ndoes not indicate whether such coating is used on these pipelines.\nHowever, UNOCAL had a procedure in place for remediating the affected pipelines, and that\nprocedure relied on an annual remediation schedule that appears consistent with the area’s\nunique operating conditions. Indeed, OPS has not argued that Respondent should have cleaned\nand coated these pipelines on more than an annual basis, or that the company failed to adhere to\nthat program in remediating the pipelines at issue in this case.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I hereby withdraw Item 2.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.749(a), which states:\n§ 192.749 Vault Maintenance.\na) Each vault housing pressure regulating and pressure limiting\nequipment, and having a volumetric internal content of 200 cubic feet\n(5.66 cubic meters) or more, must be inspected at intervals not exceeding\n15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to determine that it is in\ngood physical condition and adequately ventilated.\nThe Notice alleged that UNOCAL violated § 192.749(a) by failing to perform a timely\ninspection of each vault housing pressure regulating and pressure limiting equipment having a\nvolume in excess of 200 cubic feet. In particular, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to\nperform an annual inspection of two vaults at the Trading Bay Production Facility with a volume\nin excess of 200 feet.\n1 Response at 1.\n\n\n\n3\nUNOCAL did not contest these allegations in its Response. However, the evidence shows that\nthe vaults at issue did not contain the pressure regulating or limiting equipment required to be\nsubject to § 192.749(a). Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I hereby order that\nItem 5 be withdrawn.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2 and 5 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.479(a) and 192.749(a), respectively. As both of those Items have\nbeen withdrawn, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Item 3, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for that item. Therefore, it is considered to be a warning item.\nThe warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to prepare\nwritten procedures for conducting pipeline operations between the Granite Point\nTank Farm and the Bruce and Anna Platforms and between the Easter Forelands\nDelivery Facility and the Dillon and Baker Platforms.\nUNOCAL presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited item. Accordingly, having considered such information, I find, pursuant to 49\nC.F.R. § 190.205, that a probable violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Notice Item 3) occurred\nand Respondent has corrected that condition. If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a\nsubsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nThe Notice also proposed to issue warnings for Items 1 and 4. With respect to Item 1, the Notice\nalleged that UNOCAL had violated a requirement that applies to transmission lines, 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.150(a), but the pipe section is not part of such a line, 49 C.F.R. § 192.3. With respect to\nItem 4, the Notice alleged that Respondent had violated the valve inspection requirement in 49\nC.F.R. § 192.745(a), but the evidence submitted by UNOCAL shows that it had performed those\ninspections. Accordingly, I hereby order that Items 1 and 4 of the Notice be withdrawn.\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 sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\n\n\n\n4\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay, the terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":9668}