EXXON PIPELINE COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation

case documentOfficial PDF120025004.pdf#

120025004_final_order_07292003_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFU S Oepor Iinsnt oi Tiansponnson nssoaren and gpoeW tottiamn ~ AttinntslnNIon RQO SRVenlh Sl 5 W WRERPISEO D C 20SSO ~ JUL 29 2003 Mr Andrew K Turner Vice President Mobil Pipe Linc Company Post Office Box 2220 Houston, Texas 77252-2220 RE CPF No 1-2002-5004 Dear Mr Turner, ~ Enclosed is thc Fmal Order issued by thc Associate Admnustrator for Pipehne Safety in the above-referenced case It makes a findmg of violanon and assesses a civil penalty of $25, 000 The penalty payment terms are set forth m the Final Order. Ths enforcement action closes automatically upon payment Your receipt of the Fmal Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C F R $1905 Smcerely, Gwendolyn M. Hill Pipchnc Comphance Registry Office of Pipchne Safety FnL loDLiic LERIII II I) MAIL - REIURA RPCEIP1 RI IVI'PA'PPD#

120025004_final_order_07292003_text.pdf, page 2DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~ RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, DC 20590 ln thc Matter of Mobil Pipe Line Company, Respondent. ) ) CPF No 1-2002-5004 ~ On July 26, 2001, a representative of the Office of Ptpclme Safety (OPS) conducted an mvestigation of the January 24, 2001 acmdent mvolvmg Respondent's pipehnc m Lancaster, Pennsylvania As a result of the investigation, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS, issued to ExxonMobil Pipehne Company by lcttcr dated July 2, 2002, a Notice of Probablc Vtolauon and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice) In accordance with 49 C F R I] 190. 207, the Nohce proposed findtng that ExxonMobil Pipehne Company had violated 49 C F R tt 195 402 snd proposed assessmg a civil penalty of $25, 000 for thc alleged violation Mobil Pipe Line Company responded to the Notice by letter dated August 12, 2002 (Response) In its letter, Mobil Pipe Lmc Company acknowledged recmpt of the Notice and stated, 'The Lancaster Junction Station is owned and operated by [Mobil Pipe Lme Company] [ExxonMobil Pipeline Company] provides services lo [Mobd Pipe Lme Company] at the Lancaster Junction Station Afier carefully rcvicwing the probable violations contained m thc Notice, we take no exception As a follow-up to the incident, we have implemented retraining and counsehng to ensure adherence to [ExxonMobil Pipchnc Company's "Job SafetyAnalyscs"] and work permitproccdures [Mobil Pipe Lme Company] will pay the penalty by wire transfer Mobil Pipe Lme Company has therefore tdennficd itself as the true Respondent in ttus case Respondent did not request a hearing, consequently Respondent waived its nght to one In its Response, Respondent did not contest the alleged violation m the Notice Accordingly I find that Respondent violated the followmg section of 49 C. F R Part 195, as more fully descnbcd m the Notice#

120025004_final_order_07292003_text.pdf, page 349C F R $195402 (a) — faihng to follow, for its Lancaster Junction facthty, its manual of written procedures for conducting normal operauons and miuntenancc activiues and handhng abnormal operations and emergencies, before performing its hydrotcst operation on July 24, 2001 such as securing work permits, completing a Job safety analysis or notifying Respondent's Operations Control Center because the work could impact surveillance or control of the pipehne facihties, and (c)- fat lmg to mclude, m its manual, procedures for operatmg, mamtammg, and rcpainng the pi pehne system in accordance with each of the requircmcnts of Subparts F and H of Part 195 This ftndmg of violation will be considered a pnor offense m any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent Under 49 U S C $60122, Respondent is subJect to a civil penalty not to exceed $100, 000 per violation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1, 000, 000 for any related scncs of violations 49 U S C $60122 and 49 C F R Ii190 225 require that, in dcterminmg the amount of the civil penalty, I consider the following criteria nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violauon, degree of Respondent's culpabihty, history of Respondent's pnor offenses, Respondent's abihty to pay the penalty, good fiuth by Respondent in attemptmg to acluevc comph ance, the effect on Respondent's abihty to continue m business, and such other matters as Justice may require The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $25, 000 for the violation Accordmg to the Accident Rcport Respondent filed on August 28, 2001, ExxonMobtl Pipchne Company employees performed a hydrostatic test on Respondent's 2 5 mile 4" spur lmc running mto the Lancaster terminal on July 24, 2001 The spur hnc had been decommissioned and was isolated from the main hnc at the Junction to Lancaster Termmal the day before Unleaded gasolme was present in the mam hne, but was not flowing lt was under approximately 600 pounds of pressure A bhnd flange was placed on the 4" check valve in preparation for brtntpng the spur hne back into service Upon completion of the hydrostatic test, a contractor's employee began looserung every other bolt from the bhnd flange on the 4" check valve Afler the second bolt was loosened on the flange, a small amount of product began to leak from the flange The matnhne, on wluch the 4" check valve was attached, was still under pressure and the valves on both sides of the tee were open When the contractor's employee learned that the lme was still pressured, hc re-tightened one of the bolts on the flange A fcw moments later the flange gasket failed Unleaded gasolme and its vapors were released from the flange and were iyutcd by the rumung diesel engme of a parked vehicle Approximately 702 barrels were released, most of which were consumed by fire#

120025004_final_order_07292003_text.pdf, page 4Respondent's mvestigation of the accident rcvealcd that the ExxonMobii Pipehne Company pro) ect leader did not perform lob safety analyses or detiuled work procedures nor sought work permits before conductmg the hydrotest The mvcstigation also revealed that the premature loosemng of bolts to "save time" was a direct cause of thc acmdent Respondent did not ensure that the ExxonMobi1 Pipebne Company employees providing services to Respondent followed Respondent's manual of written procedures for conductmg normal operations and mamtenance acuvities and handhng abnormal operations and emergenmes This is somewhat surprising considcnng the fact that Respondent uses ExxonMobil Pipelme Company's "Safety Manual " The release date of the manual was March 2001 Respondent's manual is detailed and specific regardinglob safety analyses and work permits The oblecuve of the &ob safety analysis is "[t]o prevent acadcnts by identifying existing and potential hazards and takmg actions to ehmmate them or significantly reduce them to an acceptable level before a )ob bctpns " The work permit "ensures safe work practices are followed and pmvides documentauon for work associated with Special Operahons, Hot Work, Confined Space, and Control of Hazardous Energy" Hydrotestmg is cited as an example of "Special Operations" Respondent is fortunate that the accident did noi have more serious consequcnccs Had Respondent ensured that its manual was followed, thc acmdent could have bccn avoided Respondent has not shown any circumstance that would )ustify reducing the civil penalty Accordingly, havmg reviewed the reord and considered the assessment cntena, 1 assess respondent a civd penalty of $25, 000 A detemunation has bccn made that Respondent has the abihty to pay this penalty without adversely affecting its abihty to contmuc m business Paymcn( of thc civil penalty must be made wttlun 20 days of service Federal regulations (49 C F R 8921(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal Reserve Communicauons system (Fedwire), to the account of the U S Treasury Detailed instructions are contamed m the enclosure Questions concernmg wire transfers should be directed to Financial Operations Division (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Admiiustration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P 0 Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, (405) 954-4719 Failure to pay the 525, 000 civil penalty will result m accrual of mterest a the current annual rate m accordance with 31 U S C ii 3717, 31 C F R ti 901 9 snd 49 C F R (i 89 23 Pursuant to those same authonues, a late penalty charge of six percent (6'lo) per annum will be charged if payment is noi made within 110 days of service Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result m referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropnate action m a United States Distnct Court Under 49 C F R (i 190 215, Respondent has a right to peution for reconsideration of this Fmal Order However, if the civil penalty is paid, thc case closes autoinatically and Respondent waives the nght to petition for reconsideration The fihng of thc petition automatically stays the payment#

120025004_final_order_07292003_text.pdf, page 54I of sny civil penalty assessed The pehtion must be received withm 20 days of Respondent's receipt i ol' this Fmal Order and must contain a bnef statement of the issue(s) The terms and conditions of this Fmal Order are effective on recept. JUL 29 2003 Date Issued Stscey Gerard W Associate Adnumstrator for Pipehne Safety#