{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320045008","title":"PREMCOR PIPELINE COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2004-03-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.310(b)(2), 195.402(c)(12), 195.404(a)(2), 195.404(c)(3), 195.420(b), 195.442(c)(2), 195.583.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320045008.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320045008.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320045008","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320045008","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PREMCOR PIPELINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.310(b)(2),  195.402(c)(12),  195.404(a)(2),  195.404(c)(3),  195.420(b),  195.442(c)(2),  195.583. The case was opened on 2004-03-23 and is reported as closed as of 2006-03-13. Proposed civil penalty: $22,000. Assessed civil penalty: $22,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320045008_Final Order_02162006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320045008/320045008_Final%20Order_02162006.pdf\n\n320045008_final order_02162006_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320045008/320045008_final%20order_02162006_text.pdf\n\nCPF NO  3-2004-5008 THE PREMCOR REFINING GROUP INC .pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320045008/CPF%20NO%20%203-2004-5008%20THE%20PREMCOR%20REFINING%20GROUP%20INC%20.pdf\n\n320045008_final order_02162006_text.pdf\n\nU 5 Department\nof Trarnportatron\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safetti\nftdminlstratton\ne00 Sevenrn Street, S W\nWeernngten D C 20590\nMr Edward Jacoby\nVice President, Wholesale Marketing & Distabution\nThe Premcor Refining Group, Inc\n1700 East Putnam Avenue\nOld Greenwich, CT 06870\nRe CPF No 3-2004-5008\nDear Mr Jacoby\nEnclosed is the Fmal Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in\nthe above-referenced case It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of\n$22, 000 The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order This enforcement action\ncloses automatically upon payment Your receipt of the Final Order consntutes service of that\ndocument under 49 C F R tJ 190 5\nSincerely\nJames Reynolds\nPipehne Comphance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc Mr Ivan Huntoon\nDirector, Central Region, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECFIPT RE UESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20590\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nThe Premcor Refimng Group, Inc.\n, )\n)\nRespondent. )\nCPF No. 3-2004-5008\nFINAL ORDER\nOn October 6-9, 2003, pursuant to 49 U S C ls 60117, a representative of the Pipehne and\nHazardous Matenals Safety Administration (PHMSA), conducted an on-site pipehne safety\ninspection of Respondent's facihties and records in Ilhnois and Indiana As a result of the\ninspection, the Dtrector, Central Region, PHMSA, issued to Respondent, by letter dated March\n23, 2004, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Comphance\nOrder (Notice) In accordance with 49 C F R ls 190 207, the Notice proposed finding that\nRespondent had committed violations of 49 C F R Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $22, 000 for the alleged violations The Notice also proposed that Respondent take\ncertam measures to correct the alleged violations\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated Apnl 27, 2004, as supplemented by letter\ndated March 7, 2005 (Response) In its response, Respondent offered information to explain the\nallegations, provided mformauon concerning the corrective actions it has taken, stated its intent\nto pay the proposed civil penalty for three of the alleged violations, and requested that the\nproposed civil penalty amount be reduced for one of the alleged violations and that another be\nwithdrawn\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem 1 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C F R tr 195 310(b)(2) by fading to\nmaintain records documentmg the calibration of its hydrostatic test instruments In its response,\nRespondent acknowledged that it had failed to locate the specified records Accordingly, I find\nthat Respondent violated lr 195 310(b)(2) failing to maintain records documenting the calibration\nof its hydrostatic test instruments\n\n\n\nItem 2 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C F R 5 195 402(a) by faihng to follow\nthe procedures for maintainmg liaison with fire, police and other public officials that it\nestablished pursuant to tt 195 402(c)(12) dunng calendar year 2002 In its response, Respondent\nacknowledged that it had failed to locate any records demonstrating liaison activities for 2002\nAccordmgly, I find that Respondent violated 5 195 402(a) by failmg to follow its procedures for\nmaintaining liaison with fire, police and other public officials dunng 2002\nItem 3 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C F R 5 195 404(a)(2) by faihng to\nmaintain up-to-date maps of foreign utihties crossing its pipehne Respondent did not provide\nany information contesting this allegation in its response Accordingly, I find that Respondent\nviolated g 195 404(a)(2) by failing to maintain maps of foreign utilities crossing its pipehne\nItem 4a in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C F R 5 195 404(c)(3) by failing to\nmaintain inspection records for the over-fill protection for the break-out tanks at its refinery for\nthe two years preceding the inspection Respondent did not provide any information contesting\nthis allegation in its response Accordmgly, I find that Respondent violated g 195 404(c)(3) by\nfailing to maintain the specified inspection records dunng the relevant penod\nItem 5 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C F R 5 195 420(b) by faihng to\ndemonstrate that the main hne valve north of the Cal Sag Channel was inspected between 2001\nand 2003 Respondent did not provide any information contesting this allegation in its response\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violated g 195 420(b) by fading to demonstrate that the\nspecified valve was inspected dunng the relevant penod\nThese findings of violation will be considered pnor offenses m any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U S C g 60122, Respondent is subIect to a civil penalty not to exceed $25, 000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $500, 000 for any related senes of\nviolations\n49 U S C 5 60122 and 49 C F R 5 190 225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\ndegree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's pnor offenses, Respondent's abihty to\npay the penalty, good faith by Respondent m attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on\nRespondent's abihty to continue in business, and such other matters as )ustice may require\nWith respect to Item 1, the Notice proposed a civil penaltv of $5, 000 for Respondent's failure to\nmaintain records documenting the calibration of its hydrostatic test instruments Maintaining\ncomplete and accurate records of test equipment cahbrations is an important part of pipeline\nsafety because this information facditates the vahdation of the results of tests used to evaluate the\nintegrity of a pipehne and make appropriate operating decisions In its response, Respondent\n\n\n\nexplamed that it believed that the cahbration of its hydrostatic test tnstrttments had been\ndocumented but that the records had been misplaced Respondent, however, has presented no\nmformation that would warrant a reduction m the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for\nthis violahon Accordingly, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5, 000 for violatmg 49 C F R\ntt 195 310(b)(2)\nWith respect to Item 2, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5, 000 for Respondent's fad ure to\nfollow the procedures for maintaining haison with fire, police and other public officials that it\nestablished pursuant to tt 195 402(c)(12) dunng calendar year 2002 Maintainmg liaison with\nresponse officials on an ongoing basis is an important of pipelme safety because it ensures that\nthe responsible officials are kept up-to-date on the operational status of pipelines tn their area and\nfacihtates emergency response planning and the ability to rapidly establish commumcations in\nthe event of an incident In its response, Respondent explained that it believed that some liaison\nactivity did occur dunng the relevant penod Respondent, however, fmled to provide any\ndocuments or other evidence demonstrating that liaison was adequately conducted durtng 2002\nRespondent has presented no information that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty\namount proposed in the Notice for ttus violation Accordingly, I assess Respondent a civil\npenalty of $5, 000 for violating 49 C F R tt 195 402(a)\nWith respect to Item 4a, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5, 000 for Respondent's failure to\nmamtain inspection records for the over-fill protection for the break-out tanks at its refinery for\nthe two years precedmg the inspection Maintaiiung complete and accurate records of facihty\ninspections is an important part of pipehne safety because it facilitates oversight and monitonng\nof maintenance and other activities required to operate a pipeline in a safe manner and m\ncomphance with the applicable regulations Respondent has presented no mformation that would\nwarrant a reduction in the ctvil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation\nAccordingly, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5, 000 for violating 49 C F R tt\n195 404(c)(3)\nWith respect to Item 5, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $7, 000 for Respondent's fadure to\ndemonstrate that the mam hne valve north of the Cal Sag Channel was inspected between 2001\nand 2003 The inspection of main hne valves within the required time intervals is an important\npart of pipeline safety because, among other reasons, proper operation of these valves is a key\npart of mitigating a release m the event of a failure Respondent has presented no information\nthat would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed m the Notice for this\nviolation Accordingly, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $7, 000 for violating 49 C F R t1'\n195 420(b)\nAccordingly, havmg reviewed the record and considered the assessment crttena, I assess\nRespondent a total civil penalty of $22, 000\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made witlun 20 days of service Federal regulations\n(49 C F R g 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\n\n\n\nmstructions are contiuned in the enclosure Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to Financial Operauons Division (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Admmistration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P 0 Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, (405) 954-4719\nFailure to pay the $22, 000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U S C 53717, 31 C F R 5901 9 and 49 C FR 58923 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, fiulure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action m a United\nStates Distnct Court\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nWith respect to Item 3, the Notice proposed a Comphance Order for violating 49 C F R ll\n195 404(a)(2) by failing to miuntiun maps of foreign utilities crossing its pipeline Under 49\nU S C 5 60118(a), each person who engages m the transportation of hazardous liquids or who\nowns or operates a pipehne facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards\nestablished under Chapter 601 The Regional Director has indicated that Respondent has now\nprovided revised maps showing all utdity crossings m accordance with the terms of the Proposed\nCompliance Order Accordingly, since compliance has been achieved with respect to this\nviolauon, it is unnecessary to include the compliance terms in this Order\nWARNING ITEMS\nThe Notice did not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for Items 4b, 6, and 7 in the\nNotice Therefore, these are considered to be warning items The wammgs were for\nRespondent's failure to document the actions taken m response to concerns identified during\npatrols conducted in 2001 in accordance with $ 195 404(c)(3), failure to provide notification of\nits damage prevention program to excavators dunng 2001 and 2003 m accordance with )\n195 442(c)(2), and failure to provide protection against atmosphenc corrosion at the mlet piping\nto Tank 44 in accordance with $ 195 583(c) Respondent provided information in its response\nindicating that it has initiated actions to address these items Respondent is warned that if these\nitems are not fully addressed, enforcement action will be taken if a subsequent inspection reveals\na violation\n\n\n\nUnder 49 C F R 5 190 215, Respondent has a nght to submit a petition for reconsiderauon of\nthis Fmal Order Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be received withm 20 days\nof Respondent's receipt of this Fmal Order and must contain a bnef statement of the issue(s)\nThe fihng of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed However if\nRespondent submits payment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final\nadnunistrative decision and the nght to petition for reconsideration is wiuved The terms and\nconditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt\nI I\nDate Issued\nSt ce Ge d A o tate Administrator\nfor ipehne Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":13264}