U.S. 
Department 400 Seventh Street, S.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20590 
of Transportation 

Pipeline and Hazardous 
Materials Safety Administration 

SEP - 6 20% 

Mr. Jim Lamanna 

President 
BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. 
28 100 Torch Parkway 
Warrenville, IL 60555-3938 

RE: CPF No. 3-2005-5030 Petition for Reconsideration 

Dear Mr. Lamanna: 

Enclosed is the Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration issued in the above-referenced case. 
The Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety has denied the relief sought by Respondent. 
On April 26,2006, the Associate Administrator for the Office of Pipeline Safety issued a Final Order 
to BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. It made findings of violation and assessed a civil penalty of 
$50,000. Payment of the $50,000 penalty assessed is due. This enforcement action closes 
automatically upon payment. Your receipt of this Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration 
constitutes service under 49 C.F.R. $j190.5. 

Sincerely, 

'4 

James Reynolds 
Pipeline Compliance Registry 
Office of Pipeline Safety 

Enclosure 

cc: 
G.E. Schau, Manager, HSSE & Integrity, BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. 
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED 


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 


) 

In the Matter of 1 

BP Pipelines (North America) Inc., ) 
) 
CPF NO. 3-2005-5030 

1 
Respondent ? 

DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

On April 26,2006 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 9 60112, a Final Order was issued in this case, assessing 
Respondent a civil penalty of $50,000 for violating 49 C.F.R. Ħħ195.452(h)(2). On May 22,2006, 
Respondent filed a petition requesting reconsideration (Petition) of that Final Order. The Petition 
automatically stayed payment of the civil penalty pending a decision on the Petition. The Petition 
raised issues including, whether discovery should have been declared earlier based on the geometry 
tool run as alleged in Final Order; whether the changes to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 4.13 
were in effect at the time that determinations were made by Respondent regarding the integration of 
the data; whether CPF No. 5-2003-5031 is used as evidence of prior violation of 49 C.F.R. 
Ħħ195.452(h)(2); and reconsideration of the paragraph in the Final Order regarding FAQ 6.6. 

In accordance with 49 C.F.R. $1 90.2 13, in the event the Associate Administrator, OPS reconsiders a 
final order, a final decision on reconsideration may be issued without further proceedings. 
Respondent's Petition did not request that the civil penalty be withdrawn or reduced waiving further 
right to appeal. 

Although, 49 C.F.R. $ 190.215(b) and (c) clearly states that if the respondent requests the 
consideration of additional facts or arguments, the respondent must submit the reasons they were not 
presented prior to the issuance of the final order. Respondent failed to submit herein the reasons why 
additional facts or arguments were not presented prior to the issuance of the final order. In 
furtherance, 190.21 5(c) states that the Associate Administrator, OPS does not consider repetitious 
information, arguments, or petitions. While Respondent's failure to satisfy 49 C.F.R. 5 190.2 15(b) 
and (c) justifies a determination that this Petition not be considered, in PHMSA's interest to provide 
interpretive assistance about compliance with pipeline safety regulations and to clarify uncertainty 
about the meaning and extent of regulatory requirements, I have decided to consider Respondent's 
Petition. 


BACKGROUND 
The Final Order found that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Ħħ 195.452(h) (2) by failing to obtain 
sufficient informationto discover a top side dent measuring approximately 10.5%of the nominal 
pipe diameter on its Manhattan to O'Hare Airport 8-inch hazardous 1i.quidspipeline within 180 
days of an integrity assessment despite the availability of this information. This condition 
presented a potential threat to the integrity of the pipe, as a topside dent measuringapproximately 
10.5% of the nominal pipe diameter can result in a rupture increasingthe risk of harm to people, 
property and the environment in a High Consequence Area. The timeline was as follows: 
November 12,2003, Respondent ran a geometry tool. 
November 21,2003, Respondent ran a metal loss tool but experienced problems. 
August 11,2004, Respondent ran another metal loss tool. 
October 14,2004, Respondent received preliminary results from both tool runs. 
December 20,2004, Respondent received final integrated report for both runs. 
December 20, 2004, final integrated report identified a topside dent measuring 
approximately 10.5%of the nominal pipe diameter,an immediaterepair condition. 
January 4,2005, Respondent submitted a safety-related condition report. 
January 21,2005, Respondent completed repairs to the dent. 
The Final Order determined that Respondent should have promptly, but within 180 days, obtained 
sufficient information to discover the top side dent based on the November 12,2003 geometry tool 
run. Respondent should have obtained sufficientinformationfrom the geometrytool run despite the 
delay in the metal loss tool run. The Final Order further determined that the geometry tool run 
constituted an integrity assessment. This integrity assessment required Respondentto obtain, within 
180 days, the assessment data and determine whether conditions presented a threat to the pipeline. 
The Final Order found that data from the November 12,2003 geometry tool runprovided sufficient 
information to discover the topside dent and determine it presented a potential threat. 
1. 49 C.F.R. 5 195.452(h)(2) - Whether "discovery" of a condition that presented a 
potential threat to the integritv of the pipeline occurred with the geometry tool run. 
Respondent petitions that it has not violated federal pipeline safety regulations. Respondent repeats 
its position. "As stated in previous correspondence, BPPL was followingits existing written integrity 
management proceduresfor data integrationand, consistentwith those procedures,utilized the "Final 
Report" information from a valid metal loss tool run to then integrate the data and make a 
determination as to whether or not there was a discovery of a condition pursuant to the integrity 
management rules". (Petition, p. 1) Respondent repeated the argument in its Petition that there was 
not adequate information based upon the geometry tool results alone and that it was necessary and 
appropriate to wait for the metal loss tool data to determinethe date of "discovery of condition". (Id) 

Additionally, Respondent repeated its position that the tool run assessment obligations in Frequently 
Asked Questions (FAQ) 4.13 dated 10/12/02 contemplates the integration of data when both the 
corrosion and deformation tool information are integrated and used in the assessment and repair. (Id) 

First, PHMSA publishes answers to FAQs concerning compliance with the integrity management 
regulations. Answers to FAQs are neither rules, regulations nor laws, but informal guidance to the 
regulated community about how to implement their integrity management programs in accordance 
with the requirements in 49 C.F.R. 3 195.452. The intent is for FAQs to provide clarification of 
rules, regulations and requirements. 

The October 12,2002 version of FAQ 4.13' addresses the following questions: 1) whether multiple 
tool runs are needed to constitute an assessment under 49 C.F.R. 3 195.452(c)(l)(i), and 2) whether 
the date of the assessment is the day when the tool run is complete, when the preliminary data is 
received, or when the evaluation of the in-line inspection results is complete. FAQ 4.13 also provides 
examples of assessments, which are subject to change with technological developments and 
regulatory changes, as demonstrated by the inclusion of addition language in December 2005. The 
December 16,2005 revision introduced "direct assessment" as an acceptable assessment method. 
Language on "direct assessment" was added because 49 C.F.R. 3 195.452 had been changed to add 
that method. The second change, to add language on "ILI tool runs," is for clarity. More 
importantly, the last paragraph of FAQ 4.13 never changed, was in effect at the time of the January 4, 
2005 inspection and has been the same since October 2002. The last paragraph of FAQ 4.13 reads, 
"In those rare instances in which only a partial assessment is performed (e.g., in-line inspection 
system loss of power results in loss of data near the end of a pig run) operators will be expected to 
evaluate the results that were obtained within 180 days of the early termination, in accordance with 
195.452(h)(2). If however, the quality of the partial data is suspect and an entire rerun is to be 
performed, then the evaluation will be expected within 180 days after the successful rerun." This 
sentence addresses a partial assessment. 

'FAQ 4.13 For purposes of meeting the deadlines for completing baseline assessments, is the date of the 
assessment considered to be the day when the tool run is complete, when the preliminary data is received, or 
when the evaluation of the in-line inspection results is complete? 

The date on which an assessment is considered complete will be the 'date on which final field activities related to 
that assessment are performed, not including repair activities. That will be when a hydrostatic test is completed, 
when the last in-line inspection tool run of a scheduled series of tool runs is performed, or the date on which "other 
technology" for which an operator has provided timely notification is conducted. 

Evaluation of the assessment results, integration of other information, and repair of anomalies must still be 
performed in accordance with the requirements established for these activities in the rule. These activities are 
considered to occur after the completion of the "assessment". 

In those rare instances in which only a partial assessment is performed (e.g., in-line inspection system loss of power 
results in loss of data near the end of a pig run)operators will be expected to evaluate the results that were obtained 
within 180 days of the early termination, in accordance with 195.452(h)(2). If however, the quality of the partial data 
is suspect and an entire rerun is to be performed, then the evaluation will be expected within 180 days after the 
successful rerun. Last Revision: 10/12/02 


Respondent is correct that the tool run assessment obligations in FAQ 4.13 dated Octoberl2,2002 
contemplates the integration of data when both the corrosion and deformation tool information are 
integrated and used in the assessment and repair. However, Respondent must place this guidance in 
the appropriate context. As there is no suggestion that an operator wait to obtain the assessment 
results from one completed tool run until the other tool run is completed. A deformation tool run is 
an integrity assessment. A metal loss tool run is an integrity assessment. An assessment is complete 
on the date in which final field activities related to that assessment are performed. An operator must 
evaluate the assessment results in accordance with 49 C.F.R. Ħħ 195.452. These evaluation activities 
occur after the completion of the "assessment". 

On November 12,2003, the geometry tool run was successfully completed, which constituted an 
integrity assessment. At this point, Respondent had many opportunities to evaluate the assessment 
results. An operator must promptly obtain the information from an assessment to ensure that 
remediation of a condition which could threaten a pipeline's integrity occurs soon after an integrity 
assessment. No additional information was needed, beyond the geometry tool results, to identifjr as 
an immediate repair condition a dent on the top of a pipeline (8 o'clock to 4 o'clock) that is greater 
in depth than 6% of pipeline diameter. Discovery of a condition occurs when an operator has 
adequate information about the condition to determine that the condition presents a potential threat to 
the integrity of the pipeline. An operator must promptly, but no later than 180 days after an integrity 
assessment, obtain sufficient information about a condition to make that determination, unless the 
operator can demonstrate that the 180-day period is impracticable. 

The metal loss tool run on November 21, 2003 was problematic. Due to unexpected difficulties, 
Respondent was unable to obtain anticipated data from the metal loss tool run. Nevertheless, 
Respondent had adequate information from the geometry tool run available for evaluation to 
discover the condition. In those rare instances in which only a partial assessment is performed (e.g., 
in-line inspection system loss of power results in loss of data near the end of a pig run) operators will 
be expected to evaluate the results that were obtained within 180 days of the early termination, in 
accordance with 195.452(h)(2). 

Due to Respondent's data integration practices and instructions to its tool vendor to integrate data 
from both tool runs, the geometry tool run data was unevaluated until completion of the metal loss 
tool run. Respondent did not complete the metal loss tool run until August 1 1,2004 and received the 
final integrated report that identified the dent on December 20, 2004. During the months that 
elapsed between the deformation tool run and the metal loss tool run, a condition that presented a 
potential threat to the integrity of the pipeline was unimpeded. Operators are to act promptly to 
obtain sufficient information to evaluate assessment results. Operators should act on the available 
information. Sufficient information was available on November 12,2003. Respondent has provided 
no information or argument that the 180-day period was impracticable. 

The framework for operators to follow is set forth in 49 C.F.R. Ħħ 195.452 and provides some 
flexibility in achieving compliance. For the above stated reasons, I affirm the finding that 
"discovery" occurred on November 12,2003, as Respondent had sufficient information from the 


November 12, 2003 geometry tool run about the topside dent to determine that the condition 
presented a potential threat to the integrity of the pipeline. 

2. 
Reconsideration of the paragraph in the Final Order regarding FAQ 6.6 
Respondent petitions reconsideration of the paragraph in the Final Order that addresses FAQ 6.6. 
(Final Order, p.3). While Respondent raises concerns about the discussions on FAQ 6.6, Respondent 
cited FAQ 6.6 in defense of its position about the significant period between the geometry tool run 
and the metal loss tool run. It is Respondent's position that the value in citing FAQ 6.6 is that it is 
the only place in the IMP regulations where the terms "Separated in Time" and "Assessment" are 
defined and that PHMSA recently revised or incorporated similar language by referencing FAQ 6.6 
in FAQ 4.13. Respondent's interpretation is that the assessment is not complete until the last in-line 
inspection tool run of an integrated set of tool runs is performed or when the last direct examination 
associated with external corrosion direct assessment is made, or the date on which filed activities for 
other technology is conducted. Respondent concluded that its assessment was not complete until the 
August 11,2004 metal loss tool run. 

Contrary to Respondent's position, since October 2002, FAQ 4.13 explained that operators are to act 
to evaluate partial assessment results if they do not have a completed assessment. Although FAQs 

4.13 
and 6.6 explains completion of an assessment, Respondent must read carefully the question that 
the FAQ answers and place the answer in the appropriate context. It is inaccurate to state or interpret 
FAQ 4.13 as having incorporated language or referencing language from FAQ 6.6. FAQ 4.13 was 
published because operators asked if both tool runs have to be complete to meet the rules compliance 
deadlines. FAQ 6.6 does not address the question of discovery. FAQ 6.6 addresses another question, 
the need for two tool runs and how close in proximity the geometry and metal loss tool run should 
occur. There is nothing in either FAQ 4.13 or 6.6 that tells an operator they do not need to promptly 
review geometry tool results if they have a completed geometry tool run. 
In furtherance, API- 1 160 Managing System Integrity for Hazardous Liquid Pipelines published in 
November 2001, establishes the need for operators to obtain preliminary tool run reports and to 
review them for serious defects. While the standard does not explicitly call out top-side dents as in 
the IM rule, it explains that operators should act on information they have in hand to be sure there are 
not any serious anomalies that require immediate attenti~n.~ 

When a pipeline is inspected by an in-line inspection tool, the final results of the inspection should be provided to the 
operator within six months. However, certain types of potential defects should be brought to the operator's attention 
through a preliminary report. The following could present an immediate concern and should be reported by the in-line 
inspection vendor as soon as possible, but within thirty days. Metal loss greater than 80% of nominal wall regardless of 
dimensions. These anomalies can be temporarily mitigated by on-site monitoring, leak test, pressure reduction, or other 
mitigative actions until the anomaly has been excavated, assessed, and repaired, ifnecessary. Remaining strength ofthe 
pipe results in a predicted burst pressure that is less than the MOP at the location of the anomaly using a suitable 
remaining strength calculation method. Temporary mitigative actions include reduction in operating pressure with 
concurrent resetting of pressure relief device setpoints, or other mitigative actions until the anomaly can be excavated, 
assessed and repaired if necessary. As for top of the line dents (above four and eight o'clock positions) with any 
indicated metal loss, temporary mitigative actions include reduction in operating pressure with concurrent resetting of 


When a partial assessment is performed operators are expected to evaluate the results that were 
obtained within 180 days of the early termination, in accordance with 195.452(h)(2). When a 
significant amount of time elapses between the deformation tool run and the metal loss tool run an 
operators are expected to act on the information it has available. For the above stated reasons, I find 
that Respondent presented no new information upon which to reconsider the original finding. 

3. 
Whether "discoverv" of a condition is tied solely to the date of the tool run 
It is Respondent' position that findings in the Final Order that "discovery" of a condition is tied 
solely to the date of the tool runs and that "tools runs should be reviewed independently are vague 
and not define specifically till much later in the revisions of the FAQ's. Respondent argued that the 
Agency's position that discovery of a condition is tied solely to the date of tool runs is a 12/16/05 
change to FAQ 4.13 and was not in effect during the time in question. (Petition, pgs. 1 & 2) 
Respondent also repeats its contention that it discovered the topside dent within 180 days of the 
August 2004 metal loss tool run. Respondent also posed that previous inspection teams never 
elevated as an area of concern its practice of declaring "discovery" after successful completion of 
both tool runs. (Petition, pg. 1) 

Contrary to Respondent's position, discovery is not tied solely to the date of the tool run but to the 
fact that at the completion of a tool run there are assessment results from which an operator can 
obtain sufficient information about the condition to determine that condition presents a potential 
threat to the integrity of the pipeline. Since October 12,2002, FAQ 4.13 has informed operators that, 
"Evaluation of the assessment results.. .must still be performed in accordance with the requirements 
established for these activities in the rule. These activities are considered to occur after the 
completion of the "assessment"." There is no suggestion or guidance directing an operator to wait 
until both the deformation tool run and the corrosion tool runs are complete to evaluate the 
assessment results to obtain information, as an operator must promptly, but no later than 180 days 
after an integrity assessment, obtain sufficient information about a condition, which could threaten a 
pipeline's integrity. 

Again, On November 12, 2003, the geometry tool run was successfully completed. At this point, 
Respondent had many opportunities to evaluate the assessment results. An operator must promptly 
obtain the information from an assessment to ensure that remediation of a condition which could 
threaten a pipeline's integrity occurs soon after an integrity assessment. No additional information 
was needed, beyond the geometry tool results, to identifj as an immediate repair condition a dent on 
the top of a pipeline (8 o'clock to 4 o'clock) that is greater in depth than 6% of pipeline diameter. 
The November 12,2003 geometry tool run provided sufficient information to discover the topside 
dent and determine it presented a potential threat. 

pressure relief device setpoints, or other mitigative actions until the anomaly can be excavated, assessed, and repaired if 
necessary. 


When faced with uncertainty about the meaning and extent of the regulatory requirements, the 
Respondent failed to request from OPS an interpretation of the regulation. In furtherance, 49 C.F.R. 

190.1 
1 provides for informal guidance and interpretive assistance about compliance with pipeline 
safety regulations, 49 CFR parts 190- 199. If Respondent needs clarification, information on, and 
advice about compliance with pipeline safety regulations, then Respondent should take advantage of 
s190.11 to resolve any questions or concerns regarding compliance. 
4. 
Whether CPF No. 5-2003-5031 is used as evidence of prior violation of 49 C.F.R. 
s195.452(h)(2); Whether previous inspection teams demonstrated concern about 
Respondent's practice of declaring "discoverv" after completion of both tool runs. 
During March 10- 14 and March 3 1 -April 4,2003, representatives of the Office of Pipeline Safety 
(OPS), Western, Central, Southern and Southwest Regions and the Washington Utilities and 
Transportation Commission conducted an Integrity Management (IM) inspection of Respondent's 
integrity management program in Lisle, Illinois. The purpose of the inspection was to determine 
whether Respondent had developed and implemented an integrity management program (IMP) as 
required in 31 95.452. At the conclusion of the inspection and during the exit interview, Respondent 
was informed of probable violations. OPS issued to Respondent a Notice of Probable Violation, 
Proposed Civil Penalty, Proposed Compliance Order and Notice of Amendment (Notice CPF#5- 
2003-503 1), alleging various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195. Respondent responded to the Notice 
by letter dated February 5,2004. Respondent did not contest the allegations of violation but offered 
information to explain the allegations and provided information concerning the corrective actions it 
had taken. 

As a result, on May 16,2005, the Associate Administrator for OPS issued a Final Order (CPF No. 5- 
2003-503 1) finding Respondent committed violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and assessed a civil 
penalty in the amount of $1 5,500. The relevant findings in the Final Order are as follows: 1) Failure 
to have procedures that include discovery requirements and failure to schedule remediation within 

180 days of discovery of the condition; 2) Failure to have contract language that requires ILI reports 
be received from the vendor in a time frame that will permit the discovery of anomalies within 180 
days; and 3) Four instances in which the interval between the assessment and Respondent's 
discovery exceed 180 days prescribed in the IM rules. All of these items from (CPF No. 5-2003- 
5031) demonstrate the OPS inspection teams' concerns about Respondent's practice of declaring 
"discovery" after completion of both tool runs. 

Respondent petitions that if in fact CPF No. 5-2003-5031 is being used as evidence of prior 
violations of 49 C.F.R Ħħ 195.452(h)(2), it was not formally notified of PHMSA's ruling until it 
received the May 16,2005 Final Order which was well after the events that Respondent was cited for 
this case. Thus at the time of the alleged violation Respondent was operating under the premise that 
its procedures were in compliance with 49 C.F.R Ħħ 195.452(h)(2). 


Respondent is not totally unfamiliar or lacking of knowledge with PHMSA's processes and 
procedures, as this is not the first Final Order issued to Respondent. When an enforcement action(s) 
occurs and findings are made in an order, those findings are a respondent's history of prior offenses. 
It is standard language, particularly in orders with uncontested findings of violation, to notify 
respondent(s) that the findings of violation are considered prior offenses in any subsequent 
enforcement action taken against respondent(s). Attached to the Notice were Respondent's response 
options. After proper notice and opportunity to be heard, Respondent did not contest the allegations 
of violation but offered information to explain the allegations and provided information concerning 
the corrective actions it had taken. Because of Respondent's failure to controvert PHMSA's 
allegations of violation, all uncontested allegations to which Respondent had an opportunity to 
respond are taken as true. Also, 49 C.F.R Ħħ 190.225(c), Assessment Considerations, provides that 
assessment of a civil penalty considers, "The respondent's history of prior offenses." 

In the instant case, after receipt of a Safety-Related Condition Report (SRCR #2005-0001) regarding 
Respondent's Manhattan to O'Hare 8" line, OPS returned on January 4, 2005 to initiate an 
investigation. OPS inspectors found repeated instances of noncompliance, which are the subject of 
this Petition. Specifically, the inspection found Respondent still in violation of 49 C.F.R. Ħħ 
195.452(h)(2). 

For the above stated reasons, I reject Respondent's argument that the OPS inspection team did not 
demonstrate concerns about Respondent's practice of declaring "discovery" after completion of both 
tool runs. I find that Respondent presents no new information upon which to reconsider the original 
finding. Therefore, I affirm the finding that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Ħħ195.452(h)(2). 

Relief Denied 

I have considered Respondent's request for reconsideration. I do not find Respondent's assertions 
warrant amendment of the terms of the Final Order. This decision denies the relief sought by 
Respondent in its Petition. 

This decision on reconsideration is the final administrative action in this proceeding. 

Date Issued 
Acting Associate Administrator 
for Pipeline Safety