{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520085031","title":"HILCORP NORTH SLOPE, LLC — 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 195.420(a), 195.579(a), 195.583(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520085031.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520085031.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520085031","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520085031","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving HILCORP NORTH SLOPE, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.420(a),  195.579(a),  195.583(a). The case was opened on 2008-09-10 and is reported as closed as of 2012-04-02. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520085031_Final Order_04022012 .pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520085031/520085031_Final%20Order_04022012%20.pdf\n\n520085031_Final Order_04022012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520085031/520085031_Final%20Order_04022012_text.pdf\n\n520085031_NOPV PCO_09102008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520085031/520085031_NOPV%20PCO_09102008.pdf\n\n520085031_nopv pco_09102008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520085031/520085031_nopv%20pco_09102008_text.pdf\n\n520085031_operator response_10102008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520085031/520085031_operator%20response_10102008.pdf\n\n520085031_Final Order_04022012 .pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nWashington. DC 20590\nAPR 2 2012\nMr. John C. Minge\nPresident\nBP Exploration (Alaska), Inc.\n900 East Benson Boulevard\nAnchorage, AK 99519-6612\nRe: CPF No. 5-2008-5031\nDear Mr. Minge:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation, withdraws one allegation of violation, and finds that BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc.,\nhas completed the actions specified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. 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,\n~~\n~Jeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. David 0. Barnes, P.E., DOT & Integrity Manager, BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc.\nMr. Michael Rocereta, Vice President BP Transportation Alaska\nMr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [717910001642034503781\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\nBP Exploration (Alaska), Inc.,\nRespondent.\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\nCPF No. 5-2008-5031\nFINAL ORDER\nOn November 6-8, 2007, 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 BP Exploration\n(Alaska), Inc.'s (BPXA or Respondent) Milne Point Sales Oil Pipeline and Northstar Oil Transit\nLine located on the North Slope of Alaska. BPXA operates 15 North Slope oilfields, including\nPrudhoe Bay, Northstar, Endicott and Milne Point. The Milne Point pipeline is 10.5 miles in\nlength and transports crude oil from the Milne Point Central Facility Pad to the Kuparuk\nPipeline. The Northstar pipeline is 17.15 miles in length and transports crude oil from an island\nconstructed in the Beaufort Sea to Pump Station #1 on the TransAlaska Pipeline.1\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 BPXA had committed two violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed\nfinding that Respondent had committed certain other probable violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195\nand warning Respondent to take appropriate corrective action or be subject to future enforcement\naction.\nBPXA responded to the Notice by letters dated April23 and October 10, 2008 (collectively,\nResponse). The company contested the two allegations of violation and provided information\nconcerning the corrective actions it had taken. Respondent did not request a hearing and\ntherefore has waived its right to one.\n1 BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc., website, available at http//www.bp.com (last accessed October 20, 2011).\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195.579(a), as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(a), which states:\n§ 195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?\n(a) General. If you transport any hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide\nthat would corrode the pipeline, you must investigate the corrosive effect\nof the hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide on the pipeline and take\nadequate steps to mitigate internal corrosion.\n(b) Inhibitors. If you use corrosion inhibitors to mitigate internal\ncorrosion, you must-\n(1) Use inhibitors in sufficient quantity to protect the entire part of the\npipeline system that the inhibitors are designed to protect;\n(2) Use coupons or other monitoring equipment to determine the\neffectiveness of the inhibitors in mitigating internal corrosion; and\n(3) Examine the coupons or other monitoring equipment at least twice\neach calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 71h months.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.579(a) by failing to investigate the\ncorrosive effects of the hazardous liquids transported in its two pipelines and to take adequate\nsteps to mitigate any corrosion. According to the Notice, BPXA had been monitoring the\nportions of its lines located upstream of ones regulated under 49 C.F .R. Part 195, but had no\nrecords showing that the liquids being transported on the downstream DOT -regulated lines\nwould not corrode the lines or that the company had installed coupons to monitor potential\ncorrosion. The Notice also asserted that BPXA did not have a comprehensive internal corrosion\ncontrol program to determine if the hazardous liquids being transported would corrode the lines\nand, if so, to take appropriate steps to mitigate the corrosion.\nIn its Response, BPXA denied the allegation and raised several defenses. First, Respondent\nargued that in its 23 years of operating the Milne Point line and seven years of operating the\nNorthstar line, there had been no indication of any internal corrosion or any of damage that\nwould require mitigation. Second, the company contended that it had indeed monitored the\npotential for internal corrosion through various methodologies detailed in its Tier 2-0perations\nand Maintenance (O&M) Manual, Corrosion Management Strategy.2\nOne such methodology involved the use of coupons. While acknowledging that it had not\ninstalled coupons on its PHMSA-regulated pipe segments, the company argued that the coupons\nwere placed in the same fluid stream that ran through both the non-regulated upstream segments\nand the regulated downstream segments and therefore that the coupon results represented an\naccurate assessment of both. Respondent further explained that the coupons were pulled and\nanalyzed with a frequency that met or exceeded the requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(b)(3).\nThe company stated that it had performed this type of analysis in the past and had provided the\ndata to PHMSA, demonstrating that the product being transported was non-corrosive.\n2 Response at 3.\n\n\n\n3\nAnother such methodology involved the use of corrosion rate monitoring (CRM) at 23 locations\non the Milne Point pipeline and 26locations on the Northstar line.3 BPXA explained that none\nof the CRM locations had shown any wall loss or corrosion as of the date of its second Response\nletter on October 10, 2008.\nFinally, the company submitted information on its maintenance pigging program used to manage\nwater, sediment, and wax that could contribute to microbiological corrosion. Respondent\nexplained that it had performed quarterly maintenance pig runs on the Milne Point pipeline and\nbi-weekly maintenance pig runs on the Northstar pipeline.\nAfter reviewing the materials submitted with the Response, including BXPA's pigging schedule,\nperformance metrics, and its Corrosion Management Strategy Document, I agree that BPXA's\ninternal corrosion program satisfies the requirements under 49 C.P.R. § 195.579(a).\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I hereby order that Item 1 of the Notice be\nwithdrawn.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.P.R.§ 195.583(a), which states:\n§ 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?\n(a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is\nexposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as\nfollows:\nIf the pipeline is located: Then the frequency of inspection is:\nOnshore .............. At least once every 3 calendar years, but\nwith intervals not exceeding 39 months.\nOffshore ............... At least once each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 15 months.\n(b) During inspections you must give particular attention to pipe at\nsoil-to-air interfaces, under thermal insulation, under Disbonded coatings,\nat pipe supports, in splash zones, at deck penetrations, and in spans over\nwater.\n(c) If you find atmospheric corrosion during an inspection, you must\nprovide protection against the corrosion as required by§ 195.581.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.P.R.§§ 195.583(a) by failing to conduct\ninspections of its Milne Point and Northstar pipelines for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, at\nleast once every three calendar years but at intervals not exceeding 39 months. Specifically, the\n3 CRM locations are sites where the wall thickness is measured at the same location every six months using\nultrasonic equipment. Unlike coupons, these sites provide direct measurement of the pipe wall thickness at each\nlocation. Response at 2.\n\n\n\n4\nNotice alleged that although BPXA's O&M Manual4 contained adequate procedures under the\nregulation, there was no evidence, either paper or electronic, showing that the required\ninspections had actually been conducted. In support, PHMSA asserted that there were several\nlocations on the Milne Point and Northstar pipelines with inadequate coating or bare steel.5\nThe company did not contest the allegation of violation but provided an explanation of its\nactions. BPXA explained that after PHMSA's inspection, it had enhanced its Periodic\nMaintenance (PM) activities to document more comprehensively the requirements, timing, and\nfindings of its atmospheric corrosion inspections. Respondent also stated that it had completed\natmospheric corrosion inspections of the two pipelines, that it had submitted documentation\ndemonstrating that no corrosion had been found on either line, but that the company had\nnevertheless recoated the Northstar pipeline launcher. The company also stated that it was\ncommitted to having all modifications to its PM system completed by the end of2009.6\nPHMSA subsequently completed a review ofBPXA's revised procedures and documentation on\nthe recoat of the Northstar pipeline pig launcher. PHMSA also scheduled a verification\ninspection trip between November 16 and November 20, 2010, and set a subsequent inspection\nof BPXA' s procedures and records.\nIt is important, as a general rule, for operators to conduct regular inspections for atmospheric\ncorrosion to assure PHMSA and the public that the operator is operating its pipeline safely. This\nis particularly true for pipelines operating in environmentally sensitive areas such as the North\nSlope. Accordingly, having reviewed all ofthe evidence, I find that BPXA violated§ 195.589(a)\nby failing to conduct inspections of the Milne Point and Northstar pipelines for atmospheric\ncorrosion, at least once every three calendar years but at intervals not exceeding 39 months.\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. §§ 195.579(a) and 195.583(a). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person\nwho engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline\nfacility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601.\nThe allegation of violation for Item 1 has been withdrawn. Accordingly, the compliance terms\nfor Item 1 are not included in this Order. With respect to Item 2, the Director indicates that\nRespondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance order:\n4 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (September 10, 2007) (Violation Report), Exhibit A, OMER Tier 2 O&M\nManual.\ns !d. at 5.\n6 Response at 4.\n\n\n\n5\nWith respect to the violation of§ 195.583(a) (Item 2), Respondent completed\natmospheric corrosion inspections of the Northstar and Milne Point pipelines and\nrecoated the Northstar pipeline pig launcher. Respondent also provided PHMSA\nwith photographs of these actions.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,\nthe compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order and no further action\nis required.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 3, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 195 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning\nitem. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) (Notice Item 3)- Respondent's alleged failure to provide\nrecords to demonstrate that it had inspected, at intervals not exceeding 711z months\nbut at least twice each calendar year, each mainline valve on its Northstar pipeline\nfacility to determine that it functioned properly.\nRespondent presented information in its Response showing that it had taken action to ensure that\nvalve maintenance was performed according to Part 195 and that the company retained\nappropriate documentation. Having considered such information, I find, pursuant to\n49 C.F.R. § 190.205, that a probable violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) (Notice Item 3)\noccurred and Respondent is hereby advised to correct such conditions. In the event that OPS\nfinds a violation for this item in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future\nenforcement 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 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 ofthe issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of49 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 receipt of service.\n!APR! 2012\nDate Issued\n#'~~\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n520085031_Final Order_04022012_text.pdf\n\nAPR 2 2012\nMr. John C. Mingé\nPresident\nBP Exploration (Alaska), Inc.\n900 East Benson Boulevard\nAnchorage, AK 99519-6612\nRe: CPF No. 5-2008-5031\nDear Mr. Mingé:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation, withdraws one allegation of violation, and finds that BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc.,\nhas completed the actions specified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. 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. David O. Barnes, P.E., DOT & Integrity Manager, BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc.\nMr. Michael Rocereta, Vice President BP Transportation Alaska\nMr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [71791000164203450378]\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)\nBP Exploration (Alaska), Inc., ) CPF No. 5-2008-5031\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn November 6-8, 2007, 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 BP Exploration\n(Alaska), Inc.’s (BPXA or Respondent) Milne Point Sales Oil Pipeline and Northstar Oil Transit\nLine located on the North Slope of Alaska. BPXA operates 15 North Slope oilfields, including\nPrudhoe Bay, Northstar, Endicott and Milne Point. The Milne Point pipeline is 10.5 miles in\nlength and transports crude oil from the Milne Point Central Facility Pad to the Kuparuk\nPipeline. The Northstar pipeline is 17.15 miles in length and transports crude oil from an island\nconstructed in the Beaufort Sea to Pump Station #1 on the TransAlaska Pipeline.\n1\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 BPXA had committed two violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed\nfinding that Respondent had committed certain other probable violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195\nand warning Respondent to take appropriate corrective action or be subject to future enforcement\naction.\nBPXA responded to the Notice by letters dated April 23 and October 10, 2008 (collectively,\nResponse). The company contested the two allegations of violation and provided information\nconcerning the corrective actions it had taken. Respondent did not request a hearing and\ntherefore has waived its right to one.\n1 BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc., website, available at http//www.bp.com (last accessed October 20, 2011).\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195.579(a), as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(a), which states:\n§ 195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?\n(a) General. If you transport any hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide\nthat would corrode the pipeline, you must investigate the corrosive effect\nof the hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide on the pipeline and take\nadequate steps to mitigate internal corrosion.\n(b) Inhibitors. If you use corrosion inhibitors to mitigate internal\ncorrosion, you must—\n(1) Use inhibitors in sufficient quantity to protect the entire part of the\npipeline system that the inhibitors are designed to protect;\n(2) Use coupons or other monitoring equipment to determine the\neffectiveness of the inhibitors in mitigating internal corrosion; and\n(3) Examine the coupons or other monitoring equipment at least twice\neach calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 7½ months.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.579(a) by failing to investigate the\ncorrosive effects of the hazardous liquids transported in its two pipelines and to take adequate\nsteps to mitigate any corrosion. According to the Notice, BPXA had been monitoring the\nportions of its lines located upstream of ones regulated under 49 C.F.R. Part 195, but had no\nrecords showing that the liquids being transported on the downstream DOT-regulated lines\nwould not corrode the lines or that the company had installed coupons to monitor potential\ncorrosion. The Notice also asserted that BPXA did not have a comprehensive internal corrosion\ncontrol program to determine if the hazardous liquids being transported would corrode the lines\nand, if so, to take appropriate steps to mitigate the corrosion.\nIn its Response, BPXA denied the allegation and raised several defenses. First, Respondent\nargued that in its 23 years of operating the Milne Point line and seven years of operating the\nNorthstar line, there had been no indication of any internal corrosion or any of damage that\nwould require mitigation. Second, the company contended that it had indeed monitored the\npotential for internal corrosion through various methodologies detailed in its Tier 2-Operations\nand Maintenance (O&M) Manual, Corrosion Management Strategy.\n2\nOne such methodology involved the use of coupons. While acknowledging that it had not\ninstalled coupons on its PHMSA-regulated pipe segments, the company argued that the coupons\nwere placed in the same fluid stream that ran through both the non-regulated upstream segments\nand the regulated downstream segments and therefore that the coupon results represented an\naccurate assessment of both. Respondent further explained that the coupons were pulled and\nanalyzed with a frequency that met or exceeded the requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(b)(3).\nThe company stated that it had performed this type of analysis in the past and had provided the\ndata to PHMSA, demonstrating that the product being transported was non-corrosive.\n2 Response at 3.\n\n\n\n3\nAnother such methodology involved the use of corrosion rate monitoring (CRM) at 23 locations\non the Milne Point pipeline and 26 locations on the Northstar line.\nof the CRM locations had shown any wall loss or corrosion as of the date of its second Response\nletter on October 10, 2008.\n3 BPXA explained that none\nFinally, the company submitted information on its maintenance pigging program used to manage\nwater, sediment, and wax that could contribute to microbiological corrosion. Respondent\nexplained that it had performed quarterly maintenance pig runs on the Milne Point pipeline and\nbi-weekly maintenance pig runs on the Northstar pipeline.\nAfter reviewing the materials submitted with the Response, including BXPA’s pigging schedule,\nperformance metrics, and its Corrosion Management Strategy Document, I agree that BPXA’s\ninternal corrosion program satisfies the requirements under 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(a).\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all the evidence, I hereby order that Item 1 of the Notice be\nwithdrawn.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a), which states:\n§ 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?\n(a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is\nexposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as\nfollows:\nIf the pipeline is located: Then the frequency of inspection is:\nOnshore ………….. At least once every 3 calendar years, but\nwith intervals not exceeding 39 months.\nOffshore …………… At least once each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 15 months.\n(b) During inspections you must give particular attention to pipe at\nsoil-to-air interfaces, under thermal insulation, under Disbonded coatings,\nat pipe supports, in splash zones, at deck penetrations, and in spans over\nwater.\n(c) If you find atmospheric corrosion during an inspection, you must\nprovide protection against the corrosion as required by § 195.581.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.583(a) by failing to conduct\ninspections of its Milne Point and Northstar pipelines for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, at\nleast once every three calendar years but at intervals not exceeding 39 months. Specifically, the\n3 CRM locations are sites where the wall thickness is measured at the same location every six months using\nultrasonic equipment. Unlike coupons, these sites provide direct measurement of the pipe wall thickness at each\nlocation. Response at 2.\n\n\n\n4\nNotice alleged that although BPXA’s O&M Manual4 contained adequate procedures under the\nregulation, there was no evidence, either paper or electronic, showing that the required\ninspections had actually been conducted. In support, PHMSA asserted that there were several\nlocations on the Milne Point and Northstar pipelines with inadequate coating or bare steel.\n5\nThe company did not contest the allegation of violation but provided an explanation of its\nactions. BPXA explained that after PHMSA’s inspection, it had enhanced its Periodic\nMaintenance (PM) activities to document more comprehensively the requirements, timing, and\nfindings of its atmospheric corrosion inspections. Respondent also stated that it had completed\natmospheric corrosion inspections of the two pipelines, that it had submitted documentation\ndemonstrating that no corrosion had been found on either line, but that the company had\nnevertheless recoated the Northstar pipeline launcher. The company also stated that it was\ncommitted to having all modifications to its PM system completed by the end of 2009.6\nPHMSA subsequently completed a review of BPXA’s revised procedures and documentation on\nthe recoat of the Northstar pipeline pig launcher. PHMSA also scheduled a verification\ninspection trip between November 16 and November 20, 2010, and set a subsequent inspection\nof BPXA’s procedures and records.\nIt is important, as a general rule, for operators to conduct regular inspections for atmospheric\ncorrosion to assure PHMSA and the public that the operator is operating its pipeline safely. This\nis particularly true for pipelines operating in environmentally sensitive areas such as the North\nSlope. Accordingly, having reviewed all of the evidence, I find that BPXA violated § 195.589(a)\nby failing to conduct inspections of the Milne Point and Northstar pipelines for atmospheric\ncorrosion, at least once every three calendar years but at intervals not exceeding 39 months.\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. §§ 195.579(a) and 195.583(a). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person\nwho engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline\nfacility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601.\nThe allegation of violation for Item 1 has been withdrawn. Accordingly, the compliance terms\nfor Item 1 are not included in this Order. With respect to Item 2, the Director indicates that\nRespondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance order:\n4 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (September 10, 2007) (Violation Report), Exhibit A, OMER Tier 2 O&M\nManual.\n5 Id. at 5.\n6 Response at 4.\n\n\n\n5\nWith respect to the violation of § 195.583(a) (Item 2), Respondent completed\natmospheric corrosion inspections of the Northstar and Milne Point pipelines and\nrecoated the Northstar pipeline pig launcher. Respondent also provided PHMSA\nwith photographs of these actions.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,\nthe compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order and no further action\nis required.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 3, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 195 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning\nitem. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) (Notice Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to provide\nrecords to demonstrate that it had inspected, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months\nbut at least twice each calendar year, each mainline valve on its Northstar pipeline\nfacility to determine that it functioned properly.\nRespondent presented information in its Response showing that it had taken action to ensure that\nvalve maintenance was performed according to Part 195 and that the company retained\nappropriate documentation. Having considered such information, I find, pursuant to\n49 C.F.R. § 190.205, that a probable violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) (Notice Item 3)\noccurred and Respondent is hereby advised to correct such conditions. In the event that OPS\nfinds a violation for this item in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future\nenforcement 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 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\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 receipt of service.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":29302}