{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320215008","title":"HESS ND — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2021-03-01","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 194.7(b), 195.208, 195.402(a), 195.402(c)(13), 195.428(a), 195.452(f)(6), 195.579(a), 195.579(b)(1), 195.579(b)(2), 195.579(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320215008.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320215008.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320215008","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320215008","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving HESS ND. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 194.7(b),  195.208,  195.402(a),  195.402(c)(13),  195.428(a),  195.452(f)(6),  195.579(a),  195.579(b)(1),  195.579(b)(2),  195.579(c). The case was opened on 2021-03-01 and is reported as closed as of 2022-12-06. Proposed civil penalty: $127,600. Assessed civil penalty: $82,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320215008_Closure Letter_12062022_(19-163068S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320215008/320215008_Closure%20Letter_12062022_(19-163068S).pdf\n\n320215008_Closure Letter_12062022_(19-163068S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320215008/320215008_Closure%20Letter_12062022_(19-163068S)_text.pdf\n\n320215008_Consent Agreement and Order_12012021_(19-163068S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320215008/320215008_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_12012021_(19-163068S).pdf\n\n320215008_Consent Agreement and Order_12012021_(19-163068S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320215008/320215008_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_12012021_(19-163068S)_text.pdf\n\n320215008_NOPV PCP PCO_03022021.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320215008/320215008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_03022021.pdf\n\n320215008_NOPV PCP PCO_03022021_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320215008/320215008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_03022021_text.pdf\n\n320215008_Op Resp Notice Req for Hrng and Stmnt of Issues_04012021_(19-163068S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320215008/320215008_Op%20Resp%20Notice%20Req%20for%20Hrng%20and%20Stmnt%20of%20Issues_04012021_(19-163068S).pdf\n\n320215008_Operator Hearing Request Withdrawn (PHC-Hearing Scheduled Canceled)_07122021_(19-163068S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320215008/320215008_Operator%20Hearing%20Request%20Withdrawn%20(PHC-Hearing%20Scheduled%20Canceled)_07122021_(19-163068S).pdf\n\n320215008_PHC Hearing Scheduled_04212021_(19-163068S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320215008/320215008_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_04212021_(19-163068S).pdf\n\n320215008_PHC Hearing Scheduled_04212021_(19-163068S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320215008/320215008_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_04212021_(19-163068S)_text.pdf\n\n320215008_NOPV PCP PCO_03022021_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: GHill@hess.com , bbiggs@hess.com, vsund@hess.com and\nslarson@hess.com\nMarch 2, 2021\nMr. Gregory P. Hill\nPresident & Chief Operating Officer\nHESS Corporation (HESS ND)\n1501 McKinney Street, 28th Floor\nHouston, TX 77010\nCPF 3-2021-5008\nDear Mr. Hill:\nOn July 29 – August 2, August 5 – 9, 12 – 16, and 19 – 23, 2019, representatives of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\npursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) inspected Hess Corporation’s (Hess)\nRed Sky System in Minot, 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 (CFR). The items inspected\nand the probable violations are:\n\n\n\n1. §194.7 Operating restrictions and interim operating authorization.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) An operator must operate its onshore pipeline facilities in accordance with the\napplicable response plan.\nHess failed to operate its pipeline facilities in accordance with its response plan. Specifically,\nHess did not perform all Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) drills within a 3-\nyear period as required in the response plan per § 194.107(c)(1)(ix). Hess personnel were unable\nto provide documentation, and indicated to PHMSA they had not performed a qualified\nindividual notification exercise for the 4th quarter of 2016.\n2. §195.208 Welding of supports and braces.\nSupports or braces may not be welded directly to pipe that will be operated at a\npressure of more than 100 p.s.i. (689 kPa) gage.\nHess failed to prevent welding of supports to pipe that will be operated at a pressure of more than\n100 pounds per square inch (psig). PHMSA observed pipe with a maximum operating pressure\nof 1,250 psig that had supports welded directly to the pipe. This pipe with welded supports is\ndownstream of the pump at the Hawkeye Compressor Facility and is part of the natural gas\nliquids pipeline. According to Hess, this pipe was built to ASME B31.3 which allows welding\nof supports to the pipe; however, that practice is not allowed per §195.208 when the pipe was\ninstalled in 2017.\n3. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual\nof written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities\nand handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and\nappropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This\nmanual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and\nappropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and maintenance\nactivities are conducted.\nHess failed to perform annual reviews of written procedures. The pipeline safety regulations and\nHess procedures require an annual review at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once\neach calendar year. The Hess Public Awareness Program, required by § 195.440, was reviewed\non 4/22/2015, and not again until 10/10/2016 or 17.5 months. This exceeds the 15 months\nallowed by 2.5 months.\n2\n\n\n\n4. § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) . . . .\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this\nsection must include procedures for the following to provide safety during maintenance\nand normal operations:\n(1) . . . .\n(13) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to determine the\neffectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and taking\ncorrective action where deficiencies are found.\nHess failed to prepare a procedure that is compliant with the requirements of §195.402(c)(13) to\nperiodically review the work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the\nprocedures used in normal operation and maintenance and take corrective action where\ndeficiencies were found. Specifically, during the inspection, Hess pointed to Appendix 6-9 of its\nOperator Qualification (OQ) Program, last revised on 3/26/2018, when asked for its\n§195.402(c)(13) procedure. This Appendix simply repeats the text of the regulation and appears\nto be an OQ review to ensure employees and contractors are adequately trained to follow the\nprocedures. Additionally, Hess was unable to provide any documentation that it had performed a\nreview of work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures per\n§195.402(c)(13). Specifically, Hess’ procedure fails to do the following:\n1. Define periodically or clearly state how often the effectiveness review will take place for\neach procedure used in normal operation and maintenance.\n2. 4. Clearly indicate who will perform the effectiveness review.\n3. State clear documentation requirements.\nDetail a process for how a review of work done by operator personnel to determine the\neffectiveness of the procedures should be performed.\n5. § 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at intervals\nnot exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the case of\npipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 71∕2 months,\nbut at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each pressure limiting device,\nrelief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to\ndetermine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is\nadequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in\nwhich it is used.\n3\n\n\n\nHess failed to inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or\nother item of pressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good\nmechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation\nfor the service in which it is used at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once per\ncalendar year or not to exceed 7 ½ months, but at least twice each calendar year for pipelines that\ncarry highly volatile liquids. Specifically, Hess did not complete 28 inspections on the following\noverpressure control devices.\n6. § 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) . . . .\n(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An integrity\nmanagement program begins with the initial framework. An operator must continually\nchange the program to reflect operating experience, conclusions drawn from results of\nthe integrity assessments, and other maintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation\nof consequences of a failure on the high consequence area. An operator must include,\nat minimum, each of the following elements in its written integrity management\nprogram:\n(1) . . . .\n(6) Identification of preventive and mitigative measures to protect the high\nconsequence area (see paragraph (i) of this section);\n(i) What preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take to protect the high\nconsequence area?\n4\n\n\n\n(1) General requirements. An operator must take measures to prevent and mitigate the\nconsequences of a pipeline failure that could affect a high consequence area. These\nmeasures include conducting a risk analysis of the pipeline segment to identify\nadditional actions to enhance public safety or environmental protection. Such actions\nmay include, but are not limited to, implementing damage prevention best practices,\nbetter monitoring of cathodic protection where corrosion is a concern, establishing\nshorter inspection intervals, installing EFRDs on the pipeline segment, modifying the\nsystems that monitor pressure and detect leaks, providing additional training to\npersonnel on response procedures, conducting drills with local emergency responders\nand adopting other management controls.\nHess did not develop and implement a procedure for the identification of P&M measures that is\ncompliant with § 195.452(f)(6). The current process, last revised on 3/12/2018, lists activities\nthat may be included as P&M measures, but does not give any details on how to proceed with\nidentifying measures to be implemented. Specifically, the process fails to do the following:\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Define a timeframe for periodically identifying additional general P&M measures that\nincludes a risk analysis in accordance with § 195.452(i).\nDefine a timeframe for additional leak detection and emergency flow restricting device\n(EFRD) evaluations.\nGive details for how the identification of general P&M measures should be performed\nand how the leak detection and emergency flow restricting device evaluations should be\nperformed.\nClearly indicate who will conduct the identification of general P&M measures and\nevaluations of the leak detection system and emergency flow restricting devices.\nState the documentation requirements in accordance with § 195.452(l) for each\nevaluation, including the possible P&M measures considered and the basis supporting the\ndecisions and analyses to implement certain additional P&M measures.\n7. § 195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?\n(a) General. If you transport any hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide that would\ncorrode the pipeline, you must investigate the corrosive effect of the hazardous liquid\nor carbon dioxide on the pipeline and take adequate steps to mitigate internal\ncorrosion.\n5\n\n\n\nOn multiple segments of its Bakken Red Sky pipeline, Hess failed to investigate the corrosive\neffects of the hazardous liquids transported. Despite being aware that the hazardous liquid\ntransported would corrode the pipeline as confirmed by a 2011 study concluding that inhibitors\nbe used in the Palermo segment; Hess did not investigate the corrosive effect on other segments\nuntil July 5, 2019 when the 8” Hawkeye (Oil) pipeline segment underwent an internal corrosion\nassessment. Of Hess’s remaining system, there are a total of 23 line segments that required an\ninvestigation into the corrosive effects of hazardous liquids, of which, only 2 have received an\ninvestigation, leaving 21 segments shown below in the table that need to be investigated.\nSegment Name Service\nTIOGA RAIL TERMINAL TO TIOGA GAS PLANT 6.625 in Nat Gasoline NGL\nTIOGA GAS PLANT TO TIOGA RAIL TERMINAL 6.625 BUTANE TIOGA GAS PLANT TO TIOGA RAIL TERMINAL 8.625 PROPANE NGL\nNGL\nSILURIAN COMPRESSOR STATION TO TIOGA GAS PLANT 8.625 in NGL HAWKEYE NGL (NOR) 10\" NGL\nNGL\nHAWKEYE NGL (SOR) 8\" STONY CREEK PHASE II SOUTH NGL\nOIL\nSTONY CREEK PHASE II NORTH GOLIATH SOUTH 10.750\" OIL MAINLINE OIL\nOIL\nGOLIATH 10.750\" OIL MAINLINE RTF TO TRT 14 in OIL (North) OIL\nOIL\nRTF TO TRT REPLACEMENT 12 in OIL RTF TO TRT 14 in OIL (South) OIL\nOIL\nRTF to ETP 12 in OIL HAWKEYE OIL (NOR) 12\" OIL\nOIL\nHAWKEYE OIL (SOR) 12\" KEENE OIL PHASE 1 (2014) 10.750 in OIL\nOIL\nKEENE OIL PHASE 2 (2015) 10.750 in KEENE TRUNKLINE TO TESORO KEENE STATION 10 in SALES OIL OIL\nOIL\nKOG EXTENSION 10.75 in OIL JOHNSON'S CORNER CRESTWOOD 16.00 in OIL 8. OIL\nOIL\n§ 195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?\n(a) . . . .\nmust—\n(b) Inhibitors. If you use corrosion inhibitors to mitigate internal corrosion, you\n(1) Use inhibitors in sufficient quantity to protect the entire part of the pipeline system\nthat the inhibitors are designed to protect…\n6\n\n\n\nHess failed to use inhibitors in sufficient quantity to protect the entire part of the pipeline system\nthat inhibitors are designed to protect. Hess began injecting inhibitors into the Palermo Lateral\nsegment in 2011, but not in sufficient quantity. Specifically, Hess representatives stated that the\ncorrosion inhibitor injection rate did not meet the quantity specified, and the injection rate did\nnot account for the flowrate of hazardous liquid in the pipeline segment to ensure a sufficient\nquantity of inhibitor was used.\n9. §195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Inhibitors. If you use corrosion inhibitors to mitigate internal corrosion, you\nmust—\n(1) . . . .\n(2) Use coupons or other monitoring equipment to determine the effectiveness of the\ninhibitors in mitigating internal corrosion; and\nHess failed to use coupons or other monitoring equipment to determine the effectiveness of\ninhibitors and examine the coupons or other monitoring equipment at least twice each calendar\nyear not exceeding 7 ½ months. Specifically, Hess did not install coupons or other monitoring\nequipment on the Palermo Lateral line to determine the effectiveness of the inhibitors.\n10. § 195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?\n(a) . . . .\n(c) Removing pipe. Whenever you remove pipe from a pipeline, you must inspect the\ninternal surface of the pipe for evidence of corrosion. If you find internal corrosion\nrequiring corrective action under § 195.585, you must investigate circumferentially\nand longitudinally beyond the removed pipe (by visual examination, indirect method,\nor both) to determine whether additional corrosion requiring remedial action exists in\nthe vicinity of the removed pipe.\nHess failed to perform internal examination of removed pipe for evidence of internal corrosion.\nSpecifically, Hess did not perform an internal examination for pipe removed during a\nreplacement project that occurred on the 14” pipeline between the Tioga Rail Terminal and the\nRamberg Truck Facility.\n7\n\n\n\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for a\nrelated series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and before\nJuly 31, 2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day, with a\nmaximum penalty not to exceed $2,132,679. For violation occurring on or after November 2,\n2015 and before November 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per\nviolation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring\nprior to November 2, 2015, the maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per\nday, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. We\nhave reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved for the above probable\nviolation(s) and recommend that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $127,600 as\nfollows:\nItem number\nPENALTY\n5\n8\n9\n$86,200\n$19,000\n$22,400\nWarning Items\nWith respect to Items 1, 3 and 10, PHMSA has reviewed the circumstances and supporting\ndocuments involved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action\nor penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these items.\nFailure to do so may result in additional enforcement action.\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to Items 2, 4, 6 and 7 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, PHMSA proposes to issue a\nCompliance Order to Hess Corporation. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which\nis enclosed and made a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Enforcement Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All\nmaterial you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If\nyou believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment\nunder 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second\ncopy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted\nand an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\n8\n\n\n\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request a\nhearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice,\nthis constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further\nnotice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this Notice, we propose that\nyou submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from receipt of this Notice. This\nperiod may be extended by written request for good cause.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2021-5008 and, for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nGregory A. Ochs\nDirector, Central Region, OPS\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings\nCC:\nMr. Barry Biggs bbiggs@hess.com\nMrs. Vicky Sund vsund@hess.com\nMr. Shane Larson slarson@hess.com\n9\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 HESS Corporation (Hess) a Compliance Order\nincorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Hess with the\npipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to welding of supports to\npipe that will be operated at a pressure of more than 100 psig, Hess must remove\nall welded supports from the NGL line located within the Hawkeye Compressor\nFacility. Hess must submit a progress update to the Central Region Director\nwithin 90 days of the Final Order and documentation of completed work within\n180 days of the Final Order.\nIn regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to periodically reviewing the\nwork done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures\nused in normal operation and maintenance, Hess must complete development of\nthe procedures and send to the Central Region Director within 30 days of the\nFinal Order. The first run implementation of the program must begin within 90\ndays of the Final Order, and documentation of the results submitted to the Central\nRegion Director within 180 days of the Final Order.\nIn regard to Item Number 6 of the Notice pertaining to identifying preventive and\nmitigative (P&M) measures to protect high consequence areas, Hess must\ncomplete development of the procedures and send to the Central Region Director\nwithin 30 days of the Final Order. The first run implementation of the program\nmust begin within 90 days of the Final Order, and documentation of the results\nsubmitted to the Central Region Director within 180 days of the Final Order.\nIn regard to Item Number 7 of the Notice pertaining to investigating and\nmitigating the corrosive effects of hazardous liquids on its pipelines, Hess must\ncomplete the investigation into the corrosive effects of each hazardous liquid\npipeline. Hess must submit a progress update to the Central Region Director\nwithin 90 days of the Final Order and documentation of the completed\ninvestigations within 180 days of the Final Order.\nFor Items 1 through 4 of this compliance order, all required written\nsubmissions shall be sent to the attention of Gregory A. Ochs, Director,\nCentral Region, at 901 Locust Street, Room 462, Kansas City, MO 64106.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Hess maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit\nthe total to Gregory A. Ochs, Director, Central Region, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in\ntwo categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans,\nprocedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements,\nadditions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n10\n\n320215008_Consent Agreement and Order_12012021_(19-163068S)_text.pdf\n\nDecember 1, 2021\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: ghill@hess.com\nMr. Gregory P. Hill\nPresident and Chief Operating Officer\nHESS Corporation\n1501 McKinney Street, 28th Floor\nHouston, Texas 77010\nCPF No. 3-2021-5008\nDear Mr. Hill:\nEnclosed please find a Consent Order incorporating the terms of the Consent Agreement\nbetween the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and your\nsubsidiary, Hess North Dakota Pipelines LLC, which was executed on November 29, 2021.\nService of the Consent Order and Consent Agreement by electronic mail is deemed effective\nupon the date of transmission, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nSincerely,\nAlan K Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosures: Consent Agreement and Consent Order\nCc: Mr. Gregory Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. John Gatling, Vice President, Hess North Dakota Pipelines LLC, jgatling@hess.com\nMr. Scott Janoe, Counsel, Baker Botts LLP, scott.janoe@bakerbotts.com\nMs. Kimberly White, Counsel, Baker Botts LLP, kim.white@bakerbotts.com\nCONFIRMATION OF 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 )\nHess North Dakota Pipelines LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2021-5008\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nCONSENT ORDER\nBy letter dated March 2, 2021, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (PHMSA), issued a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) to Hess North Dakota Pipelines LLC (Hess or\nRespondent).\nIn response to the Notice, Hess contested certain allegations and requested a hearing.\nSubsequently, PHMSA and Hess (collectively referred to as the Parties) agreed that the contested\nissues may be resolved through informal discussions. The Parties engaged in good-faith\nsettlement discussions that have resulted in the Consent Agreement attached to this Order that\nsettles all of the issues in the Notice.\nAccordingly, the Consent Agreement is hereby approved and incorporated by reference into this\nOrder. Hess is hereby ordered to comply with the terms of the Consent Agreement, effective\nimmediately.\nPursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60101, et seq., failure to comply with this Consent Order may result in the\nassessment of civil penalties as set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.\nThe terms and conditions of this Consent Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nDecember 1, 2021\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\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 )\n)\nHess North Dakota Pipelines LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2021-5008\n)\nRespondent. )\n)\nCONSENT AGREEMENT\nOn July 29 – August 2, August 5 – 9, 12 – 16, and 19 – 23, 2019, representatives of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) inspected Hess North\nDakota Pipelines LLC (Hess or Respondent) Red Sky System in Minot, North Dakota.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated March 2, 2021, 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 Hess had violated one provision of 49 C.F.R. Part 194, nine provisions of\n49 C.F.R. Part 195, and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the\nalleged violations, and to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $127,600. Three of the alleged\nviolations were brought as warning items.\nOn April 1, 2021, Hess responded to the Notice and contested Item 2 in full, requested an\namendment to deadline to complete the actions described in the proposed compliance order for\nItem 4 and 6, requested that the proposed compliance order for Item 7 be withdrawn as moot,\nand requested a reduction in the proposed civil penalty for Items 5, 8, and 9 of the Notice\n(Response). In its Response, Hess also requested a hearing on these issues as well as the\nopportunity for an informal meeting with PHMSA to discuss the challenged items. Subsequent\nto the filing of the Response, Hess and PHMSA (collectively the Parties) met telephonically on\nnumerous occasions to discuss a possible resolution of the case in lieu of proceeding to a\nhearing. During the meetings, the Parties offered additional information regarding the\nallegations, and an agreement was reached that resolves all of the issues in the Notice. As such,\non July 12, 2021, Hess formally withdrew its request for a hearing.\nHaving agreed that settlement of this proceeding will avoid further administrative proceedings or\nlitigation and will serve the public interest by promoting safety and protection of the\n\n\n\nenvironment, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 190, and upon consent and agreement of Hess\nand PHMSA, the Parties hereby agree as follows:\nI. General Provisions\n1. Respondent acknowledges that as the operator of the pipeline facilities subject to\nthe Notice, Respondent and its referenced natural gas pipeline facilities are subject to the\njurisdiction of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations\nand administrative orders issued thereunder. For purposes of this Agreement, Respondent\nacknowledges that it received proper notice of PHMSA's action in this proceeding and that the\nNotice states claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60101, et seq., and\nthe regulations and orders issued thereunder.\n2. After Hess returns this signed Agreement to PHMSA, the Agency’s representative\nwill present it to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, recommending that the\nAssociate Administrator adopt the terms of this Agreement by issuing an administrative order\n(Consent Order) incorporating the terms of this Agreement. The terms of this Agreement\nconstitute an offer of settlement until accepted by the Associate Administrator. Once accepted, the\nAssociate Administrator will issue a Consent Order incorporating the terms of this Agreement\n3. Respondent consents to the issuance of the Consent Order, and hereby waives\nany further procedural requirements with respect to its issuance. Respondent waives all rights to\ncontest the adequacy of notice, or the validity of the Consent Order or this Agreement, including\nall rights to administrative or judicial hearings or appeals, except as set forth herein.\n4. This Agreement shall apply to and be binding upon PHMSA and Hess, its officers,\ndirectors, and employees, and its successors, assigns, or other entities or persons otherwise bound\nby law. Respondent agrees to provide a copy of this Agreement and any incorporated work plans\nand schedules to all of Hess’s officers, employees, and agents whose duties might reasonably\ninclude compliance with this Agreement.\n5. This Agreement constitutes the final, complete and exclusive agreement and\nunderstanding between the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in this Agreement.\nThe Parties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements or understandings\nrelating to settlement other than those expressly contained in this Agreement, except that the\nterms of this Agreement may be construed by reference to the Notice.\n6. Nothing in this Agreement affects or relieves Respondent of its responsibility to\ncomply with all applicable requirements of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101,\net seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. Nothing in this Agreement alters\nPHMSA's right of access, entry, inspection, and information gathering or PHMSA's authority to\nbring enforcement actions against Hess pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, the\nregulations and orders issued thereunder, or any other provision of Federal or State law.\n7. For all transfers of ownership or operating responsibility of Hess’s pipeline system\nreferenced herein, Hess will provide a copy of this Agreement to the prospective transferee at\n\n\n\nleast 30 days prior to such transfer. Hess will provide written notice of the transfer to the PHMSA\nCentral Regional Director no later than 60 days after the transfer occurs.\n8. This Agreement does not waive or modify any Federal, State, or local laws or\nregulations that are applicable to Respondent’s pipeline systems. This Agreement is not a\npermit, or a modification of any permit, under any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations.\nHess remains responsible for achieving and maintaining compliance with all applicable Federal,\nState, and local laws, regulations and permits.\n9. This Agreement does not create rights in, or grant any cause of action to, any\nthird party not party to this Agreement. The U.S. Department of Transportation is not liable for\nany injuries or damages to persons or property arising from acts or omissions of Respondent or\nits officers, employees, or agents carrying out the work required by this Agreement. Hess agrees\nto hold harmless the U.S. Department of Transportation, its officers, employees, agents, and\nrepresentatives from any and all causes of action arising from any acts or omissions of\nRespondent or its contractors in carrying out any work required by this Agreement.\n10. Upon issuance of the Consent Order, the Parties agree to the following terms.\nII. Warning Items 1, 3, and 10 of the Notice:\n11. Allegations of Violation – 49 C.F.R. §§ 194.7 (Items 1); 195.402(a) (Item 3); and\n195.579(c) (Item 10): These Items were issued as warning in the Notice, requiring no further action\nby Hess. Hess did not contest these Items. As such, these Items remain as warning as written in\nthe Notice.\nIII. Item 2 of the Notice:\n12. Allegation of Violation – 49 C.F.R. § 195.208: With respect to Item 2 of the\nNotice, PHMSA agrees to withdraw this Item due to Hess’s commitment to perform the\nfollowing mandated compliance action.\n13. Compliance Action: Hess shall perform the following compliance action, to be\ncompleted within 22 weeks from the Effective Date of this Agreement:\n(a) Hess shall move/install a pressure control valve or emergency shutdown valve\n(ESDV) upstream of the piping to the pig launcher on the Hawkeye Gas Facility\nNGL skid but downstream of the welded support, as identified in the Notice.\n(b) The specific location of the newly installed/relocated ESDV shall be consistent with\nthe location identified on Exhibit A of this Agreement.\n(c) The newly installed/relocated ESDV will be considered the demarcation point\nbetween the non-jurisdictional “in-plant piping system” associated with the Hawkeye\nGas Facility and the PHMSA jurisdictional pipeline facilities, subject to operational\nand design changes that may occur in the future.\n\n\n\nIV. Item 4 of the Notice:\n14. Item 4 - Violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.402(c)(13)): With respect to Item 4 of the\nNotice, the Parties agree that Hess violated § 192.402(c)(13), as alleged in the Notice. The\nParties acknowledge that PHMSA may choose to consider this Item to be a prior offense in any\nfuture PHMSA enforcement action taken against Hess.\n15. Compliance Order for Item 4: In regard to Item 4 of the Notice pertaining to\nperiodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the\nprocedures used in normal operation and maintenance, Hess must complete development of a\nreview process and send to the Central Region Director within 60 days of the Effective Date of\nthis Agreement. The first run implementation of the program must begin within 90 days of the\nEffective Date of this Agreement, and documentation of the results submitted to the Central\nRegion Director within 360 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement.\nV. Item 5 of the Notice:\n16. Item 5 – Violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a): With respect to Item 5 of the\nNotice, Hess agrees that it violated § 195.428(a), as alleged in the Notice. The Parties\nacknowledge that PHMSA may choose to consider this Item to be a prior offense in any future\nPHMSA enforcement action taken against Hess.\n17. for this violation.\nCivil Penalty for Item 5: Hess shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of $60,000\nVI. Item 6 of the Notice:\n18. Item 6 – Violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(13): With respect to Item 6 of the\nNotice, Hess agrees that it violated § 195.452(f)(13), as alleged in the Notice. The Parties\nacknowledge that PHMSA may choose to consider this Item to be a prior offense in any future\nPHMSA enforcement action taken against Hess.\n19. Compliance Order for Item 6: In regard to Item 6 of the Notice pertaining to\nidentifying preventive and mitigative (P&M) measures to protect high consequence areas, Hess\nmust complete development of the procedures and send to the Central Region Director by March\n30, 2022. The first run implementation of the program must begin within 90 days thereafter, and\ndocumentation of the results submitted to the Central Region Director within 180 days after\ncompletion of the first run implementation of the program.\nVII. Item 7 of the Notice:\n20. Item 7 – Violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(a): With respect to Item 7 of the\nNotice, Hess agrees that it violated § 195.579(a), as alleged in the Notice. The Parties\nacknowledge that PHMSA may choose to consider this Item to be a prior offense in any future\nPHMSA enforcement action taken against Hess.\n21. Proposed Compliance Order for Item 7: In regard to Item 7 of the Notice\npertaining to investigating and mitigating the corrosive effects of hazardous liquids on its\n\n\n\npipelines, Hess has provided to PHMSA documentation of completion of the compliance activity\nproposed in the Notice. As such, no further compliance actions are required of Hess with regard\nto this violation.\nVIII. Item 8 of the Notice:\n22. Item 8 – Violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(b)(1): With respect to Item 8 of the\nNotice, Hess agrees that it violated § 195.579(b)(1), as alleged in the Notice. The Parties\nacknowledge that PHMSA may choose to consider this Item to be a prior offense in any future\nPHMSA enforcement action taken against Hess.\n23. for this violation.\nCivil Penalty for Item 8: Hess shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of $10,000\nIX. Item 9 of the Notice:\n24. Item 9 – Violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(c): With respect to Item 9 of the\nNotice, Hess agrees that it violated § 195.579(c), as alleged in the Notice. The Parties\nacknowledge that PHMSA may choose to consider this Item to be a prior offense in any future\nPHMSA enforcement action taken against Hess.\n25. for this violation.\nCivil Penalty for Item 9: Hess shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of $12,000\nX. Enforcement\n26. This Agreement is subject to all enforcement authorities available to PHMSA under\n49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and 49 C.F.R. Part 190, including administrative civil penalties under\n49 U.S.C. § 60122, of up to $222,504 per violation for each day the violation continues and referral\nof the case to the Attorney General for judicial enforcement, if PHMSA determines that\nRespondent is not complying with the terms of this Agreement in accordance with determinations\nmade by the Director, or if appealed, in accordance with decisions of the Associate Administrator.\nThe maximum civil penalty amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety:\nInflation Adjustment of Maximum Civil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).\nXI. Dispute Resolution\n27. The Director and Hess will informally attempt to resolve any disputes arising under\nthis Agreement, including but not limited to any decision of the Director. If Hess and the Director\nare unable to informally resolve the dispute within 15 calendar days after the dispute is first raised,\nin writing, to the Director, Hess may submit a written request for a determination resolving the\ndispute from the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA. Such request must be made\nin writing and provided to the Director, counsel for the Central Region, and to the Associate\nAdministrator for Pipeline Safety, no later than 10 calendar days from the 15 day deadline for\ninformal resolution referenced in this paragraph. Along with its request, Hess must provide the\nAssociate Administrator with all information Hess believes is relevant to the dispute. Decisions of\nthe Associate Administrator under this paragraph will constitute final agency action. The existence\nof a dispute and PHMSA’s consideration of matters placed in dispute will not excuse, toll, or\n\n\n\nsuspend any term or timeframe for completion of any work to be performed under this\nAgreement during the pendency of the dispute resolution process, except as agreed by the\nDirector or the Associate Administrator in writing, or ordered by a court of competent\njurisdiction.\nXII. Effective Date\n28. The term “Effective Date,” as used herein, is the date on which the Consent Order\nis issued by the Associate Administrator, PHMSA, incorporating the terms of this Agreement.\nXIII. Modification\n29. The terms of this Agreement may be modified by mutual agreement of the Parties.\nSuch modifications must b","truncated":true,"body_characters":94085}