{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320176009","title":"STATOIL OIL & GAS LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2017-09-29","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.266, 195.402(c)(12), 195.410(a)(2)(ii), 195.452(b)(1), 195.509(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320176009.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320176009.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320176009","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320176009","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving STATOIL OIL & GAS LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.266,  195.402(c)(12),  195.410(a)(2)(ii),  195.452(b)(1),  195.509(a). The case was opened on 2017-09-29 and is reported as closed as of 2018-09-13. Proposed civil penalty: $73,700. Assessed civil penalty: $73,700. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320176009_Closure Letter_09132018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320176009/320176009_Closure%20Letter_09132018.pdf\n\n320176009_Closure Letter_09132018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320176009/320176009_Closure%20Letter_09132018_text.pdf\n\n320176009_Final Order_05142018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320176009/320176009_Final%20Order_05142018.pdf\n\n320176009_Final Order_05142018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320176009/320176009_Final%20Order_05142018_text.pdf\n\n320176009_NOPV PCP PCO_09292017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320176009/320176009_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09292017.pdf\n\n320176009_NOPV PCP PCO_09292017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320176009/320176009_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09292017_text.pdf\n\n320176009_Operator Response To Notice_11032017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320176009/320176009_Operator%20Response%20To%20Notice_11032017.pdf\n\n320176009_Final Order_05142018_text.pdf\n\nMay 14, 2018\nMr. Eldar Sætre\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nStatoil ASA\nForusbeen 50\n4035 Stavanger,\nNorway\nRe: CPF No. 3-2017-6009\nDear Mr. Sætre:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $73,700, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nStatoil Pipelines, LLC, a subsidiary of Statoil ASA, to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty\nhas been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director,\nCentral Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified\nmail is effective upon the date of mailing as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Frederick Beck, Senior VP DPUSA, 6300 Bridge Point Parkway, Bldg 2, Suite 100,\nAustin, TX 78730\nMr. Charles O’Brien, Managing Counsel, Statoil Pipelines LLC, 120 Long Ridge Road\nSuite 3EO1, Stamford, CT 06905\nMr. Ronnie Speer, Principal DOT Pipeline Compliance, DPUSA SSU SRC REG, 6300\nBridge Point Parkway, Bldg 2, Suite 100, Austin TX 78730\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nStatoil Pipelines, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2017-6009\na subsidiary of Statoil ASA, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn March 22-24 and May 3-5, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Statoil\nPipelines, LLC’s (Statoil or Respondent) North Dakota pipeline unit in Williston, North Dakota.\nStatoil ASA, the parent company of Statoil, is a Norwegian multinational oil and gas company\nheadquartered in Stavanger, Norway, with operations in 36 countries, including the United\nStates.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated September 29, 2017, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that Statoil had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed\nassessing a civil penalty of $73,700 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed\nordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nStatoil responded to the Notice by letter dated November 3, 2017 (Response). The company did\nnot contest the allegations of violation and agreed to pay the proposed penalty amount and\nperform the terms of the proposed compliance order upon receipt of this Final Order.\nRespondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Statoil did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part\n195, as follows:\n1 Statoil’s website, available at https://www.statoil.com/ (last accessed January 16, 2018).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2017-6009\nPage 2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.266, which states:\n§ 195.266 Construction records.\nA complete record that shows the following must be maintained by the\noperator involved for the life of each pipeline facility:\n(a) The total number of girth welds and the number nondestructively\ntested, including the number rejected and the disposition of each rejected\nweld.\n(b) The amount, location; and cover of each size of pipe installed.\n(c) The location of each crossing of another pipeline.\n(d) The location of each buried utility crossing.\n(e) The location of each overhead crossing.\n(f) The location of each valve and corrosion test station.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.266 by failing to maintain complete\nrecords showing the amount, location, and depth of cover of each size of pipe installed, the\nlocation of each crossing of another pipe, the location of each buried utility crossing, the location\nof each overhead crossing, and the location of each valve and corrosion test station. Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that Statoil did not have records containing information on the depth of cover\nat the time of installation (except for bored sections), pipeline location, utility or overhead\ncrossings, or valves and corrosion test stations for the Lougheed section of its pipeline.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.266 by failing to have the\nrequisite construction records for the Lougheed section of its pipeline.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(12), which states:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) . . . .\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n(1) . . . .\n(12) Establishing and maintaining liaison with fire, police, and other\nappropriate public officials to learn the responsibility and resources of each\ngovernment organization that may respond to a hazardous liquid or pipeline\nemergency and acquaint the officials with the operator’s ability in\nresponding to a hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipeline emergency and\nmeans of communication.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(12) by failing to follow for\neach pipeline system a manual of written procedures that included procedures for establishing\nliaison with fire, police, and other appropriate public officials to learn the responsibility and\nresources of each organization that may respond to a hazardous liquid or pipeline emergency and\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2017-6009\nPage 3\nacquaint these officials with Statoil’s response capabilities. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nStatoil was unable to produce records evidencing liaison efforts with fire and police departments\nfor the City of Willison and the City of Alexander. It also failed to produce records evidencing\nliaison efforts with the emergency-management and sheriff’s departments for Williams and\nMcKenzie Counties.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(12) by failing to follow\nprocedures to establish and maintain liaison with fire, police, and other appropriate public\nofficials pursuant to a manual of written procedures to provide safety during maintenance and\nnormal operations.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.410(a)(2)(ii), which states:\n§ 195.410 Line markers.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator\nshall place and maintain line markers over each buried pipeline in\naccordance with the following:\n(1) . . . .\n(2) The marker must state at least the following on a background of\nsharply contrasting color:\n(i) . . . .\n(ii) The name of the operator and a telephone number (including area\ncode) where the operator can be reached at all times.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.410(a)(2)(ii) by failing to place and\nmaintain a line marker that included a telephone number where the operator could be reached at\nall times. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Statoil failed to have a marker that listed a\ntelephone number where a person could be reached at all hours. When the inspector called the\nnumber listed, there was no response.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.410(a)(2)(ii) by failing to place\nand maintain a line marker that included a telephone number where the operator could be\nreached at all times.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(1), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) What program and practices must operators use to manage pipeline\nintegrity? Each operator of a pipeline covered by this section must:\n(1) Develop a written integrity management program that addresses the\nrisks on each segment of pipeline in the first column of the following table\nnot later than the date in the second column:\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2017-6009\nPage 4\nPipeline Date\nCategory 1 . . . . . . . . . . .\nCategory 2 . . . . . . . . . . .\nCategory 3 . . . . . . . . . . .\nMarch 31, 2002.\nFebruary 18, 2003.\n1 year after the date the pipeline begins\noperation.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(1) by failing to develop an\nintegrity management program (IMP) for a pipeline operating in a High Consequence Area\n(HCA) within the requisite time period. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Statoil failed to\ndevelop an IMP for a Category 3 pipeline (commissioned in 2013) until three years after it began\noperation, instead of the required one year.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(1) by failing to develop\nan IMP not later than one year after the date the pipeline began operation.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.509(a), which states:\n§ 195.509 General.\n(a) Operators must have a written qualification program by April 27,\n2001. The program must be available for review by the Administrator or\nby a state agency participating under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 if the program\nis under the authority of that state agency.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.509(a) by failing to have a written\nqualification program in place during operation. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Statoil\nfailed to have its written operator qualification (OQ) program in place from the time when\noperations began in February 2013 through October 2015. Prior to October 2015, there were\nemployees and contractors performing covered tasks even though Statoil did not have an OQ\nprogram in place.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.509(a) by failing to have a\nwritten qualification program in place during operation.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2017-6009\nPage 5\nrelated series of violations.2 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $73,700 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $16,900 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.266, by failing to maintain complete records showing the amount, location, and depth of\ncover of each size of pipe installed, the location of each crossing of another pipe, the location of\neach buried utility crossing, the location of each overhead crossing, and the location of each\nvalve and corrosion test station. Statoil neither contested the allegation nor presented any\nevidence or argument justifying a reduction or elimination of the proposed penalty. I find that\nStatoil failed to comply with a requirement that was clearly applicable and offered no reasonable\njustification for its noncompliance. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $16,900 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.266.\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $22,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.410(a)(2)(ii) by failing to place and maintain a line marker that included a telephone\nnumber where the operator could be reached at all times. Statoil neither contested the allegation\nnor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction or elimination of the proposed\npenalty. Statoil failed to comply with a requirement that was clearly applicable and offered no\nreasonable justification for its noncompliance. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $22,400 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.410(a)(2)(ii).\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $17,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(b)(1) by failing to develop an IMP for a Category 3 pipeline operating in an HCA\nwithin one year of operation. Statoil neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence\nor argument justifying a reduction or elimination of the proposed penalty. The proposed penalty\ntook into consideration the fact that Statoil found the noncompliance, which occurred within an\nHCA, and took documented action to correct it prior to the PHMSA inspection. Accordingly,\nhaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil\npenalty of $17,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(1).\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $17,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n49 C.F.R. § 195.509(a) by failing to have a written qualification program in place during\noperation. Statoil neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument\njustifying a reduction or elimination of the proposed penalty. The proposed penalty amount took\n2 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum\nCivil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2017-6009\nPage 6\ninto consideration that Statoil found the noncompliance, which occurred within an HCA, and\ntook documented action to correct it prior to the PHMSA inspection. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$17,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.509(a).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $73,700.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service of this Final Order.\nPayment may be made by sending a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number\nfor this case), made payable to “U.S. Department of Transportation,” to the Federal Aviation\nAdministration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Financial Operations Division (AMK-\n325), 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R.\n§ 89.21(b)(3)) also permit payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal Reserve\nCommunications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions\nare contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to:\nFinancial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney\nAeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169. The Financial\nOperations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $73,700 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 district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 2 in the Notice, for violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 195.402(c)(12). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the\nauthority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the\nfollowing actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its\noperations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.402(c)(12) (Item 2), Respondent must locate\nall missing records and send them to Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region,\nOPS, PHMSA within 90 days of receipt of this Final Order.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2017-6009\nPage 7\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the\nDirector. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated\nwith preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated\nwith replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\neach day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and\nmeet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays\nthe payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective\naction, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The\nterms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nMay 14, 2018\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n320176009_Closure Letter_09132018_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nSeptember 13, 2018\nMr. Eldar Saetre\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nStatoil ASA\nForusbeen 50\n4035 Stavanger,\nNorway\nCPF 3-2017-6009\nDear Mr. Saetre:\nOn May 14, 2018, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Statoil Pipelines, LLC a subsidiary of Statoil ASA a Final Order in the above-\nreferenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment.\nBased on our review of the documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the\ncivil penalty, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAllan C. Beshore\nDirector, Central Region, OPS\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n320176009_NOPV PCP PCO_09292017_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nSeptember 29, 2017\nMr. Frederick Beck, Senior Vice President DPUSA\nStatoil Oil & Gas LP\n6300 Bridge Point Parkway, Bldg. 2, Suite 100\nAustin, TX 78730\nCPF 3-2017-6009\nDear Mr. Beck:\nOn March 22-24 and May 3-5, 2016, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of\n49 United States Code inspected your North Dakota pipeline unit in Williston, North Dakota.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and\nthe probable violation(s) are:\n1. §195.266 Construction Records\nA complete record that shows the following must be maintained by the operator\ninvolved for the life of each pipeline facility:\n\n\n\n2. (a) The total number of girth welds and the number nondestructively tested,\nincluding the number rejected and the disposition of each rejected weld.\n(b) The amount, location; and cover of each size of pipe installed.\n(c) The location of each crossing of another pipeline.\n(d) The location of each buried utility crossing.\n(e) The location of each overhead crossing.\n(f) The location of each valve and corrosion test station.\nStatoil Oil & Gas LP (Statoil) failed to demonstrate that complete records which show\nthe amount, location, depth of cover of each size of pipe installed and location of each\ncrossing of another pipeline, location of each buried utility crossing, location of each\noverhead crossing, and location of each valve and corrosion test station are being\nmaintained for each pipe segment. The Lougheed section was reviewed for Welds, UT\nInspection, Rejections, Cut-outs, Repairs and Pipeline Component and Crossing\nLocations. No record was produced for this line on depth of cover at the time of the\npipeline’s installation except on the bored sections. No record was produced\nindicating locations of pipeline, utility or overhead crossings, valves and corrosion test\nstations.\n§195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a)\nof this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during\nmaintenance and normal operations:\n(12) Establishing and maintaining liaison with fire, police, and other\nappropriate public officials to learn the responsibility and resources of\neach government organization that may respond to a hazardous liquid or\npipeline emergency and acquaint the officials with the operator's ability in\nresponding to a hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipeline emergency\nand means of communication.\nStatoil failed to follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for\nconducting normal operations by not establishing and maintaining liaison with fire,\npolice and other appropriate public officials to learn the responsibility and resources of\neach organization that may respond to a hazardous liquid or pipeline emergency and\nacquaint the officials with Statoil’s response abilities. Statoil failed to produce records\ndemonstrating liaison efforts had occurred with fire and police departments for the\n2\n\n\n\nCities of Williston and Alexander and emergency management and sheriff departments\nfor the Counties of Williams and McKenzie.\n3. §195.410 Line markers.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall place\nand maintain line markers over each buried pipeline in accordance with the\nfollowing:\n2) The marker must state at least the following on a background of sharply\ncontrasting color:\n(ii) The name of the operator and a telephone number (including\narea code) where the operator can be reached at all times.\nStatoil failed to maintain line markers over each buried pipeline with the name of the\noperator and a telephone number where the operator can be reached at all times. There\nwas no answer when the telephone number on a line marker was called during the field\ninspection. Operator has since corrected.\n4. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(b) What program and practices must operators use to manage pipeline integrity?\nEach operator of a pipeline covered by this section must:\n(1) Develop a written integrity management program that addresses the\nrisks on each segment of pipeline in the first column of the following table\nnot later than the date in the second column:\nPipeline Date\nCategory 1 March 31, 2002\nCategory 2 February 18, 2003.\nCategory 3 1 year after the date the pipeline begins operation.\nStatoil failed to develop a written Integrity Management program (IMP) for a pipeline\noperating in a High Consequence Area (HCA) within 1 year after the pipeline began\noperations. Although the operator has Category 3 pipelines with HCAs commissioned\nin 2013, the IMP plan was not implemented until July 2016, three years after the\nbeginning of operations.\n3\n\n\n\n5. §195.509 General.\n(a) Operators must have a written qualification program by April 27, 2001. The\nprogram must be available for review by the Administrator or by a state agency\nparticipating under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 if the program is under the authority\nof that state agency.\nStatoil failed to have a written Operator Qualification (OQ) Program in place at the\ntime of beginning of operations in February 2013 thru October 2015. Prior to October\n2015, there were employees and contractors performing covered tasks but Statoil did\nnot have an OQ program in place. The OQ program was developed and operational in\nOctober 2015.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to\nexceed $209,002 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,090,022\nfor a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documentation involved in the above probable violations and has recommended\nthat you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $73,700 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $16,900\n3 $22,400\n4 $17,200\n5 $17,200\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Statoil & Gas LP.\nPlease refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this\nNotice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline\nOperators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response\noptions. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly\navailable. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential\n4\n\n\n\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide\na second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment\nredacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt\nof this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice\nand authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this\nNotice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2017-6009 and for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nAllan C. Beshore\nDirector, Central Region, OPS\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings\n5\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Statoil & Gas LP a Compliance Order\nincorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Statoil & Gas\nLP with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to establishing and\nmaintaining liaison with emergency officials, the operator must locate all\nmissing records and sent them to Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region,\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.\n2. The operator must complete the above item within 90 days after receipt of the\nFinal Order:\n3. It is requested (not mandated) that Statoil & Gas LP maintain documentation of\nthe safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order\nand submit the total to Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region, Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs\nbe reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision\nof plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n6","truncated":false,"body_characters":31374}