{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120065005","title":"MOBIL  PIPE  LINE COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2006-06-19","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.573(a)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120065005.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120065005.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120065005","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120065005","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving MOBIL  PIPE  LINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.573(a)(1). The case was opened on 2006-06-19 and is reported as closed as of 2008-12-23. Proposed civil penalty: $59,000. Assessed civil penalty: $59,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120065005_FinalOrder_11242008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120065005/120065005_FinalOrder_11242008.pdf\n\n120065005_finalorder_11242008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120065005/120065005_finalorder_11242008_text.pdf\n\n120065005_finalorder_11242008_text.pdf\n\nO\nU S Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Ave S E\nWashington, DC 20590\n50'i 3 4 Z03\nMr. Mike Tudor\nPresident\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company\n800 Bell Street\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 1-2006-5005\nDear Mr. Tudor\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Admimstrator for Pipeline Safety in the\nabove-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $59, 000.\nThe penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order This enforcement action closes\nautomatically upon receipt of payment. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of\nthat document 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 Byron Coy, Director, OPS Eastern Region\nCERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\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\n)\n)\n)\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company, )\nRespondent.\n)\n)\nCPF No. 1-2006-5005\nFINAL ORDER\nOn September 20-24, 2004, pmsuant 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 ExxonMobil\nPipeline Company (ExxonMobil or Respondent) in its Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Maine\noperating areas. Said facilities are owned by Mobil Pipe Line Company and operated by\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company, whose system includes approximately 8, 000 miles of hazardous\nliquid pipelines in twenty-three states.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nExxonMobil, by letter dated June 19, 2006, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil\nPenalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 207, the Notice proposed finding that\nExxonMobil had violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 573 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $59, 000\nfor the alleged violation.\nRespondent requested and was granted an extension of time to respond to the Notice\nExxonMobil responded to the Notice by letter dated August 25, 2006 (Response). The company\ndid not dispute the allegations but requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced or\neliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, ExxonMobil did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49\nC. F. R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. ) 195. 573(a)(1), which states:\n\n\n\ng 195. 573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) Protected p&pehnes You must do the following to determine whether\ncathodic protection required by this subpart complies with $ 195. 571:\n(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each calendar\nyear, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months. However, if tests at those\nintervals are impractical for separately protected short sections of bare or\nineffectively coated pipelines, testmg may be done at least once every 3 calendar\nyears, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months. . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to conduct the required annual tests on three cathodic\nprotection test stations along its Providence-Springfield pipeline. For two of the stations,\nExxonMobil failed to take pipe-to-soil readmgs for the years 2002 and 2003, For the third\nstation, Respondent tested it twenty-four days after the expiration of the 15-month mspection\ninterval. By conducting annual electrical surveys on test stations, operators can determine the\neffectiveness of the cathodic protection system it utilizes to reduce corrosion. Respondent,\nhowever, was not in a position to evaluate the overall condition of its cathodic protection system\nsince it failed to survey three test stations. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC, F. R. ) 195. 573 by failing to conduct tests on the pipeline at least once per calendar year but\nwithin intervals of not more than 15 months.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U. S, C. $ 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100, 000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1, 000, 000 for any\nrelated series of violations.\n49 U. S, C. $ 60122 and 49 C. F, R. $ 190, 225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent's culpability; the history\nof Respondent's prior offenses; the Respondent's ability to pay the penalty and any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $59, 000 for the violation of 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 573, as\ndiscussed above. The testing schedule set forth in ) 195. 573(a)(1) is required in order to ensure\nregular maintenance of an operator's cathodic protection system Cathodic protection is a\npreventive measure designed to protect against corrosion but it is one that requires regular\ntesting, Without the benefit of such testing, unknown corrosion may occur, creatmg a safety risk\nto the public.\n\n\n\nAlthough ExxonMobil did not contest the violation, it asserted that the penalty was excessive\n\"given the relatively minor technical nature of the violations and the circumstances associated\nwith the missed and delinquent readings, \" Specifically, Respondent contended: (1) that two of\nthe test stations were unnecessary to determine overall cathodic protection for its system and that\nthe company intended to remove them entirely; (2) that it had added other test points to enhance\ncathodic protection generally; and (3) that it had experienced difficulties in obtaining physical\naccess at two of the stations. Finally, it asserted that a review of \"similar enforcement penalty\nresolutions on the PHMSA website\" supported its contention that the proposed penalty in this\ncase was excessive.\nAlthough Respondent may now assert that the existence and use of two of the test stations were\nsuperfluous, its own procedures required that all test points be surveyed and that a particular\nprocess be used to determine if a test station were no longer critical to the survey. Specifically,\nRespondent's manual states as follows:\nAll survey test points are to be tested and documented. Any test\npoint which was not tested is to be brought to the attention of the\narea supervisor for explanation, Attempts should be made to\nrepair or replace any missing test points, which are critical to\nobtaining a representative survey of the system. If an unread test\npoint is not critical. . . it may, with the approval of the Area\nSupervisor, be omitted from the survey.\nExxonMobil, however, has not provided any evidence, either at the time of the inspection or in\nits Response, that its employees followed these procedures. Respondent failed either to resolve\nthe access issues or request removal of the test stations from the survey As a consequence, the\ntest stations remained viable and required test locations.\nRespondent also objected to the size of the penalty on the ground that it was excessive in relation\nto \"similar enforcement penalty resolutions\" by PHMSA. While it may be true that the penalty\nproposed in this case is larger than certain other penalties assessed for corrosion control\nviolations, it is also smaller than other penalties that have been assessed for the same violation.\nPHMSA calculates each civil penalty based upon the application of the statutory criteria set forth\nabove to the unique circumstances of each case In this case, several factors justify a significant\npenalty, including the fact that the missed test points were located in High Consequence Areas,\nwhich increases the potential environmental consequences of a pipeline failure. In addition,\nRespondent had a history of prior violations, including a civil penalty assessed in 2002 for the\ncompany's failure to follow its own operating and maintenance procedures. While Respondent\nmay have taken measures since the date of the inspection cited above to correct these problems\nand to enhance its cathodic protection assessment capabilities, Respondent has not presented any\ninformation that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice,\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $59, 000 for violating 49 C. F. R. ( 195. 573(a)(1).\n\n\n\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 this payment 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 (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P. O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $59, 000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\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 United\nStates District Court.\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 received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this\nFinal Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed, However, if Respondent submits\npayment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the\nright to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order shall\nbe effective upon receipt.\nNGV 24 2008\nDate Issued\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":11559}