{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520155015","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":"2015-07-10","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.412(b), 195.432(b), 195.573(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520155015.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520155015.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520155015","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520155015","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.412(b),  195.432(b),  195.573(d). The case was opened on 2015-07-10 and is reported as closed as of 2016-12-06. Proposed civil penalty: $104,500. Assessed civil penalty: $52,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520155015_Final Order_11222016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155015/520155015_Final%20Order_11222016.pdf\n\n520155015_Final Order_11222016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155015/520155015_Final%20Order_11222016_text.pdf\n\n520155015_NOPV PCP PCO_07102015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155015/520155015_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_07102015.pdf\n\n520155015_NOPV PCP PCO_07102015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155015/520155015_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_07102015_text.pdf\n\n520155015_Operator Response to Notice_08132015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520155015/520155015_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_08132015.pdf\n\n520155015_NOPV PCP PCO_07102015_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJuly 10, 2015\nMr. Thomas Barrett\nPresident & CEO\nAlyeska Pipeline Service Company\nP.O. Box 196660\nAnchorage, AK 99519\nCPF 5-2015-5015\nDear Mr. Stokes:\nBetween April 23, 2013 and March 27, 2014, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States\nCode, inspected the records and facilities of Alyeska Pipeline Service Company’s (Alyeska)\nTrans Alaska Pipeline System, known as TAPS. This inspection included site visits to Pump\nStation 1 through Pump Station 12 and the Valdez Marine Terminal (VMT). In addition,\noperating and maintenance procedures and supporting implementation records were reviewed\nin your Anchorage, Alaska office.\n\n\n\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and\nthe probable violations are:\n1. §195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n(b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and\nlow-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according to API Standard 653\n(incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nAlyeska did not perform monthly in-service inspections of low pressure steel aboveground\nbreakout tanks required by API Standard 653 section 6.3.1.2. During the inspection\nperformed by PHMSA and in additional discussions with Alyeska compliance personnel,\nAlyeska staff stated that monthly inspections were not being conducted at Pump Station 7\nfrom August 2010 through September 2011. Furthermore, our staff learned that only quarterly\ninspections were being conducted at Pump Station 12 from July 2012 through March 2014.\nAlyeska staff stated the rationale was it was a cold restart tank only and not considered to be\n“in-service.” Alyeska must conduct monthly inspections of all PHMSA regulated\naboveground breakout tanks that are defined to be part of the “pipeline system,” and in\naccordance with API Standard 653 section 6.3.1.2.\n2. §195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable waters.\n(b) Except for offshore pipelines, each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 5\nyears, inspect each crossing under a navigable waterway to determine the condition\nof the crossing.\nAlyeska did not inspect each crossing under a navigable waterway to determine the condition\nof the crossing at intervals not exceeding five years. When requested to provide the\ninspection records for inspections of TAPS’ buried navigable waterway crossings, Alyeska\nstaff only provided a record for the Chena River crossing. Alyeska staff further stated that the\nChena River crossing was the only waterway crossing the company inspected per\n§195.412(b).\nAlyeska identifies several navigable waters which the TAPS crosses. In Table 52 of Alyeska\ndocument, DB-180 – Design Basis Update, Edition 6, Revision 2, dated March 27, 2013,\nAlyeska identified the Klutina River, Lowe River, Salcha River, and several other buried\nwaterway crossings they considered navigable. In addition, the United States Coast Guard\n(USCG) has published a list of navigable waters of Alaska (Navigable Waters of the United\nStates within the Seventeenth Coast Guard District, Revision Date: March 2012). The\nUSCG’s list of navigable waters includes several navigable waterways where TAPS was\ninstalled utilizing a buried, trench crossing. These trenched crossings include but are not\nlimited to the Klutina River, Lowe River, and Salcha River.\nAlyeska is required to inspect each crossing under a navigable waterway to determine the\ncondition of the crossing at intervals not exceeding five years. Currently, Alyeska is only\n\n\n\ninspecting the Chena River crossing and is not inspecting the other rivers designated as\nnavigable by the USCG.\n3. §195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(d) Breakout tanks. You must inspect each cathodic protection system used to\ncontrol corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank to ensure that\noperation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with API Recommended\nPractice 651.\nAlyeska is required by §195.573 to inspect each cathodic protection system used to control\ncorrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank to ensure that operation and\nmaintenance of the system are in accordance with API Recommended Practice 651. Alyeska\ndid not provide tank cathodic protection potential survey records for the PS12 breakout tank\nfor the year 2010. Alyeska was able to provide cathodic protection survey records for 2011\nand 2012.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a\nrelated series of violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum\npenalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to\nexceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the\ncircumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and\nhas recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $104,500 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\nItem 1 $ 26,100\nItem 2 $ 52,500\nItem 3 $ 25,900\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Alyeska. Please\nrefer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline\nOperators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response\noptions. All material submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly\navailable. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\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\n\n\n\ninformation qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond\nwithin 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the\nallegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to\nfind facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2015-5015 and for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 R. Guisinger/D. Johnson (#143270)\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\nCompliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the\ncompliance of Alyeska with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to the inspection of each\ncrossing under a navigable waterway to determine the condition of the crossing\nat intervals not exceeding five years, Alyeska must do the following:\na. Identify and list all locations where TAPS crosses under a navigable\nwaterway within 30 days after receipt of the Final Order.\nb. Modify Alyeska’s Operation and Maintenance (O&M) procedures to\nrequire inspection of each crossing under a navigable waterway to\ndetermine the condition of the crossing at intervals not exceeding five\nyears. Our Advisory Bulletin (ADB-2015-01) regarding flooding, scour\nand river migration, dated April 9, 2015, should be reviewed and addressed\nin your procedure modifications. Complete the O&M revisions within 90\ndays after receipt of the Final Order.\nc. Inspect each TAPS crossing under a navigable waterway to determine the\ncondition of the crossing. Complete inspection of each navigable water\ncrossing within 365 days after receipt of the Final Order. This Proposed\nCompliance Order does not modify the current inspection cycle for the\nChena River crossing.\n2. It is requested (not mandated) that Alyeska maintain documentation of the\nsafety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and\nsubmit the total to Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be\nreported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of\nplans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n\n520155015_Final Order_11222016_text.pdf\n\nNovember 22, 2016\nMr. Thomas Barrett\nPresident & CEO\nAlyeska Pipeline Service Company\nP.O. Box 196660\nAnchorage, AK 99519\nRe: CPF No. 5-2015-5015\nDear Mr. Barrett:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, withdraws one alleged violation, and assesses a civil penalty of $52,000. The penalty\npayment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid, as\ndetermined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of\nthe Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, OPS\nMr. Rod Hanson, Sr. Vice-President, Operations & Maintenance, Alyeska\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\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)\nAlyeska Pipeline Service Company, ) CPF No. 5-2015-5015\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween April 23, 2013 and March 27, 2014, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Alyeska\nPipeline Service Company’s (Alyeska or Respondent) Trans Alaska Pipeline System, known as\nTAPS. This inspection included site visits to Respondent’s Pump Station 1 through Pump\nStation 12 and the Valdez Marine Terminal. In addition, operating and maintenance procedures\nand supporting implementation records were reviewed in Alyeska’s Anchorage, Alaska office.\nAlyeska operates TAPS, an 800-mile-long pipeline that transports crude oil from Prudhoe Bay to\nValdez, Alaska.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated July 10, 2015, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that Alyeska had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.432, 195.412 and 195.573\nand proposed assessing a civil penalty of $104,500 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated August 13, 2015 (Response). The company\ndid not contest the allegations of violations relating to §195.432 (Item 1) and § 195.573 (Item 3)\nand agreed to pay the proposed civil penalties for those items, totaling $52,000, as provided in 49\nC.F.R. § 190.227. The company contested the allegation related to § 195.412 (Item 2), offered\nadditional information in response to the Notice, and requested that the proposed civil penalty\nrelating to Item 2 be eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived\nits right to one.\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (July 10, 2015) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-5015\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Alyeska did not contest the allegations in the Notice relating to Items 1 and 3,\nthat it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), which states:\n§ 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n(a) ….\n(b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric\nand low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according to API Std 653\n(except section 6.4.3, Alternative Internal Inspection Interval) (incorporated by\nreference, see §195.3). However, if structural conditions prevent access to the\ntank bottom, its integrity may be assessed according to a plan included in the\noperations and maintenance manual under §195.402(c)(3). The risk-based\ninternal inspection procedures in API Std 653, section 6.4.3 cannot be used to\ndetermine the internal inspection interval.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to perform\nmonthly in-service inspections of low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks required by\nAPI Standard 653 section 6.3.1.2.2 Specifically, the Notice alleged that during the inspection\nperformed by PHMSA, and in additional discussions with Alyeska compliance personnel,\nRespondent’s staff stated that monthly inspections had not been conducted at Pump Station 7\nfrom August 2010 through September 2011. Furthermore, PHMSA staff learned that only\nquarterly inspections had been conducted at Pump Station 12 from July 2012 through March\n2014. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review\nof all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to\nperform monthly in-service inspections of low pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks\nrequired by API Standard 653 section 6.3.1.2.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d), which states:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) ….\n(d) Breakout tanks. You must inspect each cathodic protection system used to\ncontrol corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank to ensure that\noperation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with API RP 651\n(incorporated by reference, see §195.3). However, this inspection is not required\nif you note in the corrosion control procedures established under §195.402(c)(3)\nwhy complying with all or certain operation and maintenance provisions of API\nRP 651 is not necessary for the safety of the tank.\n2 API Std 653, section 6.3.1.2 states that the interval of routine in-service inspections from the outside of the\nbreakout tank shall be consistent with conditions at the particular site, but shall not exceed one month.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-5015\nPage 3\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d) by failing to inspect each of\nits cathodic protection systems used to control corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground\nbreakout tank, so as to ensure that operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance\nwith API Recommended Practice 651. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Alyeska could not\nprovide tank cathodic protection potential survey records for the PS 12 breakout tank for 2010.\nRespondent could only provide such records for its PS12 breakout tank for 2011 and 2012.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d) by failing to inspect each\nof its cathodic protection systems used to control corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground\nbreakout tank, so as to ensure that operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance\nwith API Recommended Practice 651.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nIn its Response, Alyeska contested the allegation in the Notice relating to Item 2, that it violated\n49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(b), which states:\n§ 195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable waters.\n(a) ….\n(b) Except for offshore pipelines, each operator shall, at intervals not\nexceeding 5 years, inspect each crossing under a navigable waterway to determine\nthe condition of the crossing.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(b) by failing to inspect each\ncrossing under a navigable waterway to determine the condition of the crossing at intervals not\nexceeding five years. Specifically, the Notice alleged that when requested to provide the\ninspection records for inspections of TAPS’s buried navigable waterway crossings, Alyeska staff\nonly provided a record for the Chena River crossing. The Notice alleged that TAPS contains\nseveral other buried pipelines that cross under navigable waterways, including, but not limited to,\ncrossing under the Klutina River, Lowe River, and Salcha River. During the inspection, Alyeska\nstaff allegedly stated that the Chena River crossing was the only waterway crossing Respondent\ninspected per § 195.412(b).\nIn its Response, Alyeska stated that it fully complied with § 195.412(b) because the Chena River\nCrossing is the only commercially navigable waterway crossed underneath by the TAPS.\nAlyeska asserted that a “navigable waterway” for the purposes of § 195.412(b) is a\n“commercially navigable waterway” and, therefore, the Chena River is the only “navigable\nwaterway” for purposes of § 195.412(b) that the TAPS crosses.\nAlyeska argued that it used PHMSA’s preferred database, the National Waterways Network\n(NWN), to identify commercially navigable waterways that are potentially regulated under\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-5015\nPage 4\n§195.412.3 The NWN identified only two rivers that are crossed by Respondent – the Yukon\nRiver and the Chena River.4 Respondent eliminated the Yukon River because the pipe does not\ncross “under” the river, but rather crosses the river by bridge, leaving only the Chena River that\nis subject to § 195.412(b).5\nAlyeska stated that PHMSA defines a “navigable waterway” as a “commercially navigable\nwaterway” in a January 29, 2001 Letter of Interpretation.6 In that letter, in response to a request\nfrom a pipeline operator for clarification of the definition of “navigable waterways” for purposes\nof compliance with § 195.412(b), PHMSA stated that “navigable waterways” were waterways\nthat had been designated as “commercially navigable waterways” by the NWN.7\nHaving reviewed the evidence, I find Alyeska correctly notes that § 195.412(b) does not define\n“navigable waterway” nor is it expressly defined anywhere in 49 C.F.R. Part 195.8 On\nSeptember 8, 2000, PHMSA issued a rule addressing the abandonment of underwater pipeline\nfacilities.9 In this rule, PHMSA defined “navigable waterways” as “commercially navigable\nwaterways… where a substantial likelihood of commercial navigation exists.”10 The 2000 Rule\nalso noted that “guidance in determining the affected waterways is available in a geographic\ndatabase of navigable waterways in and around the United States…called the National\nWaterways Network (NWN).”11 While the 2000 Rule addressed changes in §195.59, PHMSA\nhas since issued guidance applying this definition of “navigable waterways” and the use of the\nNWN to §195.412.12\n3 Respondent provided a copy of from the NWN listing the State of Alaska Waterways. Response, Ex. E.\n4 Response at 4.\n5 Response at 4.\n6 Response at 4; Marathon Ashland Pipeline LLC, Letter of Interpretation, PL-01-0100 at 1 (Jan. 29, 2001),\navailable at\nhttp://www.phmsa.dot.gov/portal/site/PHMSA/menuitem.6f23687cf7b00b0f22e4c6962d9c8789/?vgnextoid=228571\ndd2f4a6410VgnVCM100000d2c97898RCRD&vgnextchannel=2b9b34d513f95410VgnVCM100000d2c97898RCR\nD&vgnextfmt=print.\n7 Marathon Ashland Pipeline LLC, Letter of Interpretation, PL-01-0100 at 1.\n8 Response at 3.\n9 Pipeline Safety: Underwater Abandoned Pipeline Facilities, Final Rule, 65 FR 54,440 (Sep. 8, 2000) (2000 Rule).\n10 2000 Rule at 54,442\n11 2000 Rule at 54,442.\n12 Operations and Maintenance Enforcement Guidance, Part 195 Subpart F, § 195.412 at 51-56 (Dec. 1, 2014)\n(noting that “[t]he specific requirement for an underwater pipeline crossing inspection needs to be based on actual\ncommercial water traffic in that area”); Marathon Ashland Pipeline LLC, Letter of Interpretation, PL-01-0100 at 1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-5015\nPage 5\nIn the January 29, 2001 Letter of Interpretation, PHMSA stated that the “National Waterways\nNetwork (NWN) database is the basis we use to identify commercially navigable waterways.\nOur use of this database replaces the use of the referenced USCG designation.”13 It further\nstated that the waterway at issue was subject to §195.412 because it was “considered\ncommercially navigable and that it will be included in the next annual release of the National\nWaterways dataset in March of 200l. Therefore, we will continue to regard this river as\ncommercially navigable under the published classifications.”14 PHMSA’s Operations &\nMaintenance Enforcement Guidelines, published as a reference tool for operators, supports the\nincorporation of the 2000 Rule’s definition of “navigable waterways” in §195.412, stating that\n“[t]he specific requirement for an underwater pipeline crossing inspection needs to be based on\nactual commercial water traffic in that area.”15\nIn its Recommendation, OPS relied on a November 1973 Interpretation letter to define\n“navigable waterway”.16 This letter definition is broader than that of the 2000 Rule:\nnavigable waters of the United States shall be construed to mean those waters of\nthe United States, including the territorial seas adjacent thereto, the general\ncharacter of which is navigable, and which, either by themselves or by uniting\nwith other waters, form a continuous waterway on which boats or vessels may\nnavigate or travel between two or more States, or to or from foreign nations .... 17\nOPS argues that PHMSA’s preferred database defining “navigable waterways” is that the United\nStates Coast Guard (USGC) database and that under the USCG, Respondent has an obligation to\ninspect far more crossings that the Chena River crossing.18\nWhile OPS is correct that the 1973 Interpretation letter defined “navigable waterway,” I find that\nthe 2000 Rule and PHMSA’s subsequent guidance delineate PHMSA’s current definition and\ntreatment of a “navigable waterway.” It is therefore reasonable for operators to conclude that a\n“navigable waterway” is a “commercially navigable waterway.”\nApplying this definition to Alyeska’s system, the Chena River is the only “navigable waterway”\nfor purposes of § 195.412(b) under which the TAPS crosses because it is the only waterway\ncrossing “where a substantial likelihood of commercial navigation exists.”\n13 Marathon Ashland Pipeline LLC, Letter of Interpretation, PL-01-0100 at 1.\n14 Marathon Ashland Pipeline LLC, Letter of Interpretation, PL-01-0100 at 1.\n15 Operations and Maintenance Enforcement Guidance, Part 195 Subpart F, § 195.412 at 55.\n16 Recommendation at 4. Note: the correct date of the letter of interpretation is November 16, 1973. Colonial\nPipeline Company, Letter of Interpretation, PI-73-037 (Oct. 18, 1973). OPS also references a June 18, 1994 Letter\nof Interpretation. A copy of this letter was not provided and could not be located.\n17 Colonial Pipeline Company, Letter of Interpretation, PI-73-037.\n18 Recommendation at 2.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-5015\nPage 6\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Alyeska did not violate 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.412(b) by failing to inspect each crossing under a navigable waterway to determine the\ncondition of the crossing at intervals not exceeding five years because the at issue waterways are\nnot commercially navigable waterways. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 2 be\nwithdrawn.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $104,500 for the violations cited above.\nItems 1 and 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $52,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 195.432 for failing to perform monthly in-service inspections of low pressure steel\naboveground breakout tanks required by API Standard 653 section 6.3.1.2, and Respondent’s\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.573 for failing to inspect each of its cathodic protection systems\nused to control corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank, so as to ensure that\noperation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with API Recommended Practice\n651. Respondent did not contest these violations and agreed to pay the proposed civil penalties.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $52,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.432 and 195.573.\nItem 2 has been withdrawn and, therefore, there is no civil penalty associated with Item 2.\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $52,000.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S Macarthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, OK 79169. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $52,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-5015\nPage 7\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 2 in the Notice for a violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 195.412(b). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601.\nItem 2 has been withdrawn, and therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Item\n2 are not included in this Order.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, 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 this Final Order by the\nRespondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order\nbecomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nNovember 22, 2016\n________________________________________ ___________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":30443}