# HESS CORPORATION — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 120196004
- **title:** HESS CORPORATION — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2019-05-06
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.567(c), 195.573(e), 195.583(a).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120196004.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120196004.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120196004
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120196004
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving HESS CORPORATION. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.567(c),  195.573(e),  195.583(a). The case was opened on 2019-05-06 and is reported as closed as of 2020-03-27. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

120196004_Closure Letter_03272020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120196004/120196004_Closure%20Letter_03272020.pdf

120196004_Closure Letter_03272020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120196004/120196004_Closure%20Letter_03272020_text.pdf

120196004_Final Order_12022019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120196004/120196004_Final%20Order_12022019.pdf

120196004_Final Order_12022019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120196004/120196004_Final%20Order_12022019_text.pdf

120196004_NOPV PCO_05062019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120196004/120196004_NOPV%20PCO_05062019.pdf

120196004_NOPV PCO_05062019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120196004/120196004_NOPV%20PCO_05062019_text.pdf

120196004_Operator Response to Notice_08052019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120196004/120196004_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_08052019.pdf

120196004_Closure Letter_03272020_text.pdf

OVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY
March 27, 2020
Mr. John B. Hess
Chief Executive Officer
Hess Corporation
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
CPF 1-2019-6004
Dear Mr. Hess:
On December 2, 2019, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to Hess Corporation (Hess) a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included
a Compliance Order. Based on our review of the documentation Hess provided, it has been
determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert Burrough
Director, Eastern Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

120196004_Final Order_12022019_text.pdf

December 2, 2019
Mr. John B. Hess
Chief Executive Officer
Hess Corporation
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
Re: CPF No. 1-2019-6004
Dear Mr. Hess:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Hess Corporation to comply with the
pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as
determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of
the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing, as provided under 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Alan Lindsey, Senior Legal Counsel, Hess Corporation, 1501 McKinney Street,
Houston, Texas 77010
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Hess Corporation, ) CPF No. 1-2019-6004
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On January 22 and 29, 2018, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Hess Corporation’s
(Hess or Respondent), North Jersey Pipeline system located in New Jersey. Hess operates 23.49
miles of 10-inch and 14-inch pipe from Bayonne, New Jersey to Bogota and Edgewater, in
Bergen and Essex counties, New Jersey. The pipeline transports oil to four receiving locations,
including two Public Service Enterprise Group power plants and two Hess terminal facilities.
The pipeline was constructed in the early 1970s, and has been out of service since August 2005.
The line has been purged, cleaned and filled with nitrogen, but Hess continues to maintain the
line for potential future use.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated May 6, 2019, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order
(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Hess had
committed three violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed ordering Respondent to take
certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
After requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Hess responded to the Notice by
letter dated August 5, 2019 (Response). The company did not contest the allegations of
violation, but provided information concerning the corrective actions it had taken and agreed to
complete the proposed compliance actions. Respondent also requested modification to the
proposed compliance actions. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its
right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, Hess did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part
195, as follows:
1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (May 6, 2019) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.



CPF No. 1-2019-6004
Page 2
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.567(c), which states:
§ 195.567 Which pipelines must have test leads and what must I do to
install and maintain the leads?
(a) …
(c) Maintenance. You must maintain the test lead wires in a condition
that enables you to obtain electrical measurements to determine whether
cathodic protection complies with § 195.571.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.567(c) by failing to maintain test
lead wires on its North Jersey Pipeline in a condition that could allow electrical measurements to
be taken to determine whether cathodic protection complies with § 195.571. Specifically, the
Notice alleged that PHMSA reviewed cathodic protection annual survey records for 2016 and
2017. These records indicated that in 2016 and 2017 about 9 percent and 13 percent of the test
points, respectively, could not be tested as they could not be located, were damaged, or had
missing test wires.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.567(c) by failing to maintain
test lead wires on its North Jersey Pipeline in a condition that could allow electrical
measurements to be taken to determine whether cathodic protection complies with § 195.571.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e), which states:
§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(a) …
(e) Corrective Action. You must correct any identified deficiency in
corrosion control as required by § 195.401(b). However, if the deficiency
involves a pipeline in an integrity management program under § 195.452,
you must correct the deficiency as required by § 195.452(h).
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e) by failing to correct
corrosion control deficiencies for its North Jersey Pipeline that were identified in its 2016 and
2017 cathodic protection system annual survey reports. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
when PHMSA reviewed records of 2016 and 2017 cathodic protection annual surveys and
rectifier inspections, the records demonstrated numerous deficiencies in corrosion control. These
deficiencies included failure to meet the -850 mV criteria for cathodic protection, and failure to
maintain Rectifier #1 and the associated ground bed in proper working order.
The 2016 and 2017 annual survey reports indicated about 26 percent and 31 percent of total test
points, respectively, had pipe-to-soil potentials less negative than -850 mV. The reports also
demonstrated that the ground bed at Rectifier #1 was depleted, with indications of inadequate
performance since April 21, 2015. The rectifier was turned off in May of 2016, and repairs had
not been completed as of the November 2017 annual survey report.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e) by failing to correct



CPF No. 1-2019-6004
Page 3
corrosion control deficiencies for its North Jersey Pipeline that were identified in its 2016 and
2017 cathodic protection system annual survey reports.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a), which states:
§ 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?
(a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed
to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:
If the pipeline is located: Onshore…………………………. Then the frequency of inspection is:
At least once every 3 calendar
years, but with intervals not
exceeding 39 months
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a) by failing to inspect each
pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric
corrosion at least once every three calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.
Specifically, Hess exceeded the three calendar year interval requirement between 2012 and 2016,
and failed to perform an adequate atmospheric corrosion inspection during its 2016 atmospheric
corrosion inspection of its North Jersey Pipeline.
During the inspection, the PHMSA inspector reviewed Hess’s 2016 atmospheric corrosion
inspection report from its third-party consultant, dated August 12, 2016. The report stated that a
visual inspection of the aboveground piping in the North Jersey Pipeline system was performed
on April 19, 2016. The report also stated that the last inspection had been performed on
December 11, 2012. Based on this information, atmospheric corrosion inspections were
conducted during the 2012 and 2016 calendar years, which fails to meet the requirement of
§ 195.583(a) by over three months.
In addition to exceeding the interval requirement, Hess failed to perform an adequate
atmospheric corrosion inspection during 2016. The 2016 report noted locations where piping
underneath failed coating still needed to be inspected for corrosion damage, as the visual
inspection performed did not include any removal of inspection barriers or up-close
examinations. The report also identified a pipeline joint that needed corrosion product removal
and investigation to determine remaining wall thickness and service life. Overall, the visual
inspection performed failed to adequately assess the presence and extent of atmospheric
corrosion on these pipeline segments.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a) by failing to inspect each
pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric
corrosion at least once every three calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.



CPF No. 1-2019-6004
Page 4
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, and 3 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.567(c), 195.573(e), and 195.583(a), respectively. Under 49
U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who
owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards
established under chapter 601.
Regarding the Proposed Compliance Order generally, Hess stated that it is considering
abandoning the system, and therefore requested that the proposed compliance order be modified
“i) to allow for abandonment as a remedy for the alleged compliance issues; and ii) to trigger the
180-day compliance periods from a decision to reopen by Hess or any successor in interest to the
system.”
If Hess permanently abandons the system pursuant to § 195.402(c)(10), the proposed compliance
items would no longer be necessary to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. I therefore
find it appropriate to amend the Compliance Order to allow Hess to abandon the system in lieu
of completing the compliance actions. Hess must notify PHMSA of its decision to abandon
within 60 days from issuance of the Final Order, and the abandonment must be completed 30
days later. Absent abandonment, however, I do not agree that the terms of the Compliance Order
should be amended to apply only after Hess or any successor decides to restart the currently idled
system. Such a modification would permit Respondent’s pipeline system to remain out of
compliance for an indefinite period of time. Therefore, the second modification requested by
Hess is denied. Respondent must promptly remediate the identified violations unless it abandons
the pipeline.
With regard to the violation of § 195.567(c) (Item 1), Respondent stated that it had conducted
cathodic protection surveys of the system between February 12 and 14, 2019. It admitted,
however, that several test points could not be tested because they could not be accessed, could
not be located, were damaged or demolished, or had missing test wires.
Hess has not demonstrated that it has repaired or replaced all damaged or missing test
stations/leads, nor did it provide adequate justification as to why such repair or replacement
would not be necessary for determining the cathodic protection's compliance with § 195.571. I
therefore find that Hess has not satisfied the compliance terms for Item 1, which are included
below.
With regard to the violation of § 195.573(e) (Item 2), Hess indicated repairs of the Rectifier # 1
ground bed had been completed. It also stated that it had not brought all cathodic protection
pipe-to-soil potentials along its North Jersey Pipeline into compliance with the applicable
cathodic protection criteria, with approximately 10 percent of the valid test points having
“structure-electrolyte potentials less negative than -0.850 volts with respect to a copper/copper
sulfate reference electrode.”
While Hess states that it has completed the repairs on Rectifier #1, it must provide
documentation to the Region demonstrating that the repairs are complete. It must also complete
an electrical survey of the entire North Jersey Pipeline to determine that the cathodic protection



CPF No. 1-2019-6004
Page 5
system complies with § 195.571. I therefore find that Hess has not satisfied the compliance
actions for Item 2, which are included below.
With regard to the violation of § 195.583(a) (Item 3), Hess did not provide any additional
information regarding actions performed relevant to the proposed compliance order. Therefore, I
find that Hess has not satisfied the compliance actions for Item 3, which are included below.
For the above reasons, the Compliance Order is modified as set forth below.
Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is
ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations
applicable to its operations:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. With respect to the violation of § 195.567(c) (Item 1), Respondent must:
a. Complete the repair or replacement of all damaged or missing electrical test
leads for external corrosion control along its North Jersey Pipeline.
b. Alternatively, if the test lead is not needed for external corrosion control
monitoring, Hess must provide justification for removing the test lead in
accordance with § 195.567.
c. This action must be completed within 180 days of issuance of the Final Order.
With respect to the violation of § 195.573(e) (Item 2), Respondent must:
a. Complete the repair of its Rectifier # 1 ground bed and bring all cathodic
protection pipe-to-soil potentials along its North Jersey Pipeline into
compliance with the applicable criteria for cathodic protection.
b. Conduct an electrical survey of the entire North Jersey Pipeline to determine
that the cathodic protection system complies with § 195.571.
c. These actions must be completed within 180 days of issuance of the Final
Order.
With respect to the violation of § 195.583(a) (Item 3), Respondent must:
a. Conduct an adequate atmospheric corrosion inspection of the entire North
Jersey Pipeline system and mitigate any atmospheric corrosion found as
required by § 195.583(c).
b. This action must be completed within 90 days of issuance of the Final Order.
Documentation demonstrating compliance with Items 1-3 above must be submitted to
Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, 840 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 300, West Trenton, NJ 08628 for
review within 210 days of issuance of the Final Order.
In lieu of completing the above requirements in Items 1 through 4, Hess may elect to
abandon the pipeline system in its entirety. This abandonment of the system must be
completed within 90 days from issuance of the Final Order. Hess must notify
PHMSA of its intention to abandon the system within 60 days from issuance of the
Final Order.



CPF No. 1-2019-6004
Page 6
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
It is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the
Director. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated
with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated
with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for
each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a
district court of the United States.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final
Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of
Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this
Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and
meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The terms of the order, including corrective
action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
December 2, 2019
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 19506