# HESS ND — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

320215008_Closure Letter_12062022_(19-163068S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320215008/320215008_Closure%20Letter_12062022_(19-163068S).pdf

320215008_Closure Letter_12062022_(19-163068S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320215008/320215008_Closure%20Letter_12062022_(19-163068S)_text.pdf

320215008_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

320215008_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

320215008_NOPV PCP PCO_03022021.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320215008/320215008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_03022021.pdf

320215008_NOPV PCP PCO_03022021_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320215008/320215008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_03022021_text.pdf

320215008_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

320215008_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

320215008_PHC Hearing Scheduled_04212021_(19-163068S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320215008/320215008_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_04212021_(19-163068S).pdf

320215008_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

320215008_NOPV PCP PCO_03022021_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: GHill@hess.com , bbiggs@hess.com, vsund@hess.com and
slarson@hess.com
March 2, 2021
Mr. Gregory P. Hill
President & Chief Operating Officer
HESS Corporation (HESS ND)
1501 McKinney Street, 28th Floor
Houston, TX 77010
CPF 3-2021-5008
Dear Mr. Hill:
On July 29 – August 2, August 5 – 9, 12 – 16, and 19 – 23, 2019, representatives of the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) inspected Hess Corporation’s (Hess)
Red Sky System in Minot, North Dakota.
As a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected
and the probable violations are:



1. §194.7 Operating restrictions and interim operating authorization.
(a) . . . .
(b) An operator must operate its onshore pipeline facilities in accordance with the
applicable response plan.
Hess failed to operate its pipeline facilities in accordance with its response plan. Specifically,
Hess did not perform all Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) drills within a 3-
year period as required in the response plan per § 194.107(c)(1)(ix). Hess personnel were unable
to provide documentation, and indicated to PHMSA they had not performed a qualified
individual notification exercise for the 4th quarter of 2016.
2. §195.208 Welding of supports and braces.
Supports or braces may not be welded directly to pipe that will be operated at a
pressure of more than 100 p.s.i. (689 kPa) gage.
Hess failed to prevent welding of supports to pipe that will be operated at a pressure of more than
100 pounds per square inch (psig). PHMSA observed pipe with a maximum operating pressure
of 1,250 psig that had supports welded directly to the pipe. This pipe with welded supports is
downstream of the pump at the Hawkeye Compressor Facility and is part of the natural gas
liquids pipeline. According to Hess, this pipe was built to ASME B31.3 which allows welding
of supports to the pipe; however, that practice is not allowed per §195.208 when the pipe was
installed in 2017.
3. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual
of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities
and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at
intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and
appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This
manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and
appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and maintenance
activities are conducted.
Hess failed to perform annual reviews of written procedures. The pipeline safety regulations and
Hess procedures require an annual review at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once
each calendar year. The Hess Public Awareness Program, required by § 195.440, was reviewed
on 4/22/2015, and not again until 10/10/2016 or 17.5 months. This exceeds the 15 months
allowed by 2.5 months.
2



4. § 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) . . . .
(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this
section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during maintenance
and normal operations:
(1) . . . .
(13) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to determine the
effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and taking
corrective action where deficiencies are found.
Hess failed to prepare a procedure that is compliant with the requirements of §195.402(c)(13) to
periodically review the work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the
procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and take corrective action where
deficiencies were found. Specifically, during the inspection, Hess pointed to Appendix 6-9 of its
Operator Qualification (OQ) Program, last revised on 3/26/2018, when asked for its
§195.402(c)(13) procedure. This Appendix simply repeats the text of the regulation and appears
to be an OQ review to ensure employees and contractors are adequately trained to follow the
procedures. Additionally, Hess was unable to provide any documentation that it had performed a
review of work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures per
§195.402(c)(13). Specifically, Hess’ procedure fails to do the following:
1. Define periodically or clearly state how often the effectiveness review will take place for
each procedure used in normal operation and maintenance.
2. 4. Clearly indicate who will perform the effectiveness review.
3. State clear documentation requirements.
Detail a process for how a review of work done by operator personnel to determine the
effectiveness of the procedures should be performed.
5. § 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at intervals
not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the case of
pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 71∕2 months,
but at least twice each calendar year, inspect and test each pressure limiting device,
relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to
determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is
adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in
which it is used.
3



Hess failed to inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or
other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good
mechanical condition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation
for the service in which it is used at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once per
calendar year or not to exceed 7 ½ months, but at least twice each calendar year for pipelines that
carry highly volatile liquids. Specifically, Hess did not complete 28 inspections on the following
overpressure control devices.
6. § 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(a) . . . .
(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An integrity
management program begins with the initial framework. An operator must continually
change the program to reflect operating experience, conclusions drawn from results of
the integrity assessments, and other maintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation
of consequences of a failure on the high consequence area. An operator must include,
at minimum, each of the following elements in its written integrity management
program:
(1) . . . .
(6) Identification of preventive and mitigative measures to protect the high
consequence area (see paragraph (i) of this section);
(i) What preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take to protect the high
consequence area?
4



(1) General requirements. An operator must take measures to prevent and mitigate the
consequences of a pipeline failure that could affect a high consequence area. These
measures include conducting a risk analysis of the pipeline segment to identify
additional actions to enhance public safety or environmental protection. Such actions
may include, but are not limited to, implementing damage prevention best practices,
better monitoring of cathodic protection where corrosion is a concern, establishing
shorter inspection intervals, installing EFRDs on the pipeline segment, modifying the
systems that monitor pressure and detect leaks, providing additional training to
personnel on response procedures, conducting drills with local emergency responders
and adopting other management controls.
Hess did not develop and implement a procedure for the identification of P&M measures that is
compliant with § 195.452(f)(6). The current process, last revised on 3/12/2018, lists activities
that may be included as P&M measures, but does not give any details on how to proceed with
identifying measures to be implemented. Specifically, the process fails to do the following:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Define a timeframe for periodically identifying additional general P&M measures that
includes a risk analysis in accordance with § 195.452(i).
Define a timeframe for additional leak detection and emergency flow restricting device
(EFRD) evaluations.
Give details for how the identification of general P&M measures should be performed
and how the leak detection and emergency flow restricting device evaluations should be
performed.
Clearly indicate who will conduct the identification of general P&M measures and
evaluations of the leak detection system and emergency flow restricting devices.
State the documentation requirements in accordance with § 195.452(l) for each
evaluation, including the possible P&M measures considered and the basis supporting the
decisions and analyses to implement certain additional P&M measures.
7. § 195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?
(a) General. If you transport any hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide that would
corrode the pipeline, you must investigate the corrosive effect of the hazardous liquid
or carbon dioxide on the pipeline and take adequate steps to mitigate internal
corrosion.
5



On multiple segments of its Bakken Red Sky pipeline, Hess failed to investigate the corrosive
effects of the hazardous liquids transported. Despite being aware that the hazardous liquid
transported would corrode the pipeline as confirmed by a 2011 study concluding that inhibitors
be used in the Palermo segment; Hess did not investigate the corrosive effect on other segments
until July 5, 2019 when the 8” Hawkeye (Oil) pipeline segment underwent an internal corrosion
assessment. Of Hess’s remaining system, there are a total of 23 line segments that required an
investigation into the corrosive effects of hazardous liquids, of which, only 2 have received an
investigation, leaving 21 segments shown below in the table that need to be investigated.
Segment Name Service
TIOGA RAIL TERMINAL TO TIOGA GAS PLANT 6.625 in Nat Gasoline NGL
TIOGA GAS PLANT TO TIOGA RAIL TERMINAL 6.625 BUTANE TIOGA GAS PLANT TO TIOGA RAIL TERMINAL 8.625 PROPANE NGL
NGL
SILURIAN COMPRESSOR STATION TO TIOGA GAS PLANT 8.625 in NGL HAWKEYE NGL (NOR) 10" NGL
NGL
HAWKEYE NGL (SOR) 8" STONY CREEK PHASE II SOUTH NGL
OIL
STONY CREEK PHASE II NORTH GOLIATH SOUTH 10.750" OIL MAINLINE OIL
OIL
GOLIATH 10.750" OIL MAINLINE RTF TO TRT 14 in OIL (North) OIL
OIL
RTF TO TRT REPLACEMENT 12 in OIL RTF TO TRT 14 in OIL (South) OIL
OIL
RTF to ETP 12 in OIL HAWKEYE OIL (NOR) 12" OIL
OIL
HAWKEYE OIL (SOR) 12" KEENE OIL PHASE 1 (2014) 10.750 in OIL
OIL
KEENE OIL PHASE 2 (2015) 10.750 in KEENE TRUNKLINE TO TESORO KEENE STATION 10 in SALES OIL OIL
OIL
KOG EXTENSION 10.75 in OIL JOHNSON'S CORNER CRESTWOOD 16.00 in OIL 8. OIL
OIL
§ 195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?
(a) . . . .
must—
(b) Inhibitors. If you use corrosion inhibitors to mitigate internal corrosion, you
(1) Use inhibitors in sufficient quantity to protect the entire part of the pipeline system
that the inhibitors are designed to protect…
6



Hess failed to use inhibitors in sufficient quantity to protect the entire part of the pipeline system
that inhibitors are designed to protect. Hess began injecting inhibitors into the Palermo Lateral
segment in 2011, but not in sufficient quantity. Specifically, Hess representatives stated that the
corrosion inhibitor injection rate did not meet the quantity specified, and the injection rate did
not account for the flowrate of hazardous liquid in the pipeline segment to ensure a sufficient
quantity of inhibitor was used.
9. §195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?
(a) . . . .
(b) Inhibitors. If you use corrosion inhibitors to mitigate internal corrosion, you
must—
(1) . . . .
(2) Use coupons or other monitoring equipment to determine the effectiveness of the
inhibitors in mitigating internal corrosion; and
Hess failed to use coupons or other monitoring equipment to determine the effectiveness of
inhibitors and examine the coupons or other monitoring equipment at least twice each calendar
year not exceeding 7 ½ months. Specifically, Hess did not install coupons or other monitoring
equipment on the Palermo Lateral line to determine the effectiveness of the inhibitors.
10. § 195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?
(a) . . . .
(c) Removing pipe. Whenever you remove pipe from a pipeline, you must inspect the
internal surface of the pipe for evidence of corrosion. If you find internal corrosion
requiring corrective action under § 195.585, you must investigate circumferentially
and longitudinally beyond the removed pipe (by visual examination, indirect method,
or both) to determine whether additional corrosion requiring remedial action exists in
the vicinity of the removed pipe.
Hess failed to perform internal examination of removed pipe for evidence of internal corrosion.
Specifically, Hess did not perform an internal examination for pipe removed during a
replacement project that occurred on the 14” pipeline between the Tioga Rail Terminal and the
Ramberg Truck Facility.
7



Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for a
related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and before
July 31, 2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day, with a
maximum penalty not to exceed $2,132,679. For violation occurring on or after November 2,
2015 and before November 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per
violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring
prior to November 2, 2015, the maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per
day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. We
have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved for the above probable
violation(s) and recommend that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $127,600 as
follows:
Item number
PENALTY
5
8
9
$86,200
$19,000
$22,400
Warning Items
With respect to Items 1, 3 and 10, PHMSA has reviewed the circumstances and supporting
documents involved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action
or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these items.
Failure to do so may result in additional enforcement action.
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to Items 2, 4, 6 and 7 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, PHMSA proposes to issue a
Compliance Order to Hess Corporation. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which
is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.
Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators
in Enforcement Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All
material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If
you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment
under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second
copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted
and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential
treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
8



Following the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request a
hearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice,
this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further
notice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this Notice, we propose that
you submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from receipt of this Notice. This
period may be extended by written request for good cause.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2021-5008 and, for each document
you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Gregory A. Ochs
Director, Central Region, OPS
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings
CC:
Mr. Barry Biggs bbiggs@hess.com
Mrs. Vicky Sund vsund@hess.com
Mr. Shane Larson slarson@hess.com
9



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to HESS Corporation (Hess) a Compliance Order
incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Hess with the
pipeline safety regulations:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to welding of supports to
pipe that will be operated at a pressure of more than 100 psig, Hess must remove
all welded supports from the NGL line located within the Hawkeye Compressor
Facility. Hess must submit a progress update to the Central Region Director
within 90 days of the Final Order and documentation of completed work within
180 days of the Final Order.
In regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to periodically reviewing the
work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures
used in normal operation and maintenance, Hess must complete development of
the procedures and send to the Central Region Director within 30 days of the
Final Order. The first run implementation of the program must begin within 90
days of the Final Order, and documentation of the results submitted to the Central
Region Director within 180 days of the Final Order.
In regard to Item Number 6 of the Notice pertaining to identifying preventive and
mitigative (P&M) measures to protect high consequence areas, Hess must
complete development of the procedures and send to the Central Region Director
within 30 days of the Final Order. The first run implementation of the program
must begin within 90 days of the Final Order, and documentation of the results
submitted to the Central Region Director within 180 days of the Final Order.
In regard to Item Number 7 of the Notice pertaining to investigating and
mitigating the corrosive effects of hazardous liquids on its pipelines, Hess must
complete the investigation into the corrosive effects of each hazardous liquid
pipeline. Hess must submit a progress update to the Central Region Director
within 90 days of the Final Order and documentation of the completed
investigations within 180 days of the Final Order.
For Items 1 through 4 of this compliance order, all required written
submissions shall be sent to the attention of Gregory A. Ochs, Director,
Central Region, at 901 Locust Street, Room 462, Kansas City, MO 64106.
It is requested (not mandated) that Hess maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit
the total to Gregory A. Ochs, Director, Central Region, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration. 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.
10

320215008_Consent Agreement and Order_12012021_(19-163068S)_text.pdf

December 1, 2021
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: ghill@hess.com
Mr. Gregory P. Hill
President and Chief Operating Officer
HESS Corporation
1501 McKinney Street, 28th Floor
Houston, Texas 77010
CPF No. 3-2021-5008
Dear Mr. Hill:
Enclosed please find a Consent Order incorporating the terms of the Consent Agreement
between the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and your
subsidiary, Hess North Dakota Pipelines LLC, which was executed on November 29, 2021.
Service of the Consent Order and Consent Agreement by electronic mail is deemed effective
upon the date of transmission, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Sincerely,
Alan K Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosures: Consent Agreement and Consent Order
Cc: Mr. Gregory Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. John Gatling, Vice President, Hess North Dakota Pipelines LLC, jgatling@hess.com
Mr. Scott Janoe, Counsel, Baker Botts LLP, scott.janoe@bakerbotts.com
Ms. Kimberly White, Counsel, Baker Botts LLP, kim.white@bakerbotts.com
CONFIRMATION OF 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 North Dakota Pipelines LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2021-5008
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
CONSENT ORDER
By letter dated March 2, 2021, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
Office of Pipeline Safety (PHMSA), issued a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) to Hess North Dakota Pipelines LLC (Hess or
Respondent).
In response to the Notice, Hess contested certain allegations and requested a hearing.
Subsequently, PHMSA and Hess (collectively referred to as the Parties) agreed that the contested
issues may be resolved through informal discussions. The Parties engaged in good-faith
settlement discussions that have resulted in the Consent Agreement attached to this Order that
settles all of the issues in the Notice.
Accordingly, the Consent Agreement is hereby approved and incorporated by reference into this
Order. Hess is hereby ordered to comply with the terms of the Consent Agreement, effective
immediately.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60101, et seq., failure to comply with this Consent Order may result in the
assessment of civil penalties as set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.
The terms and conditions of this Consent Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
December 1, 2021
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
)
In the Matter of )
)
Hess North Dakota Pipelines LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2021-5008
)
Respondent. )
)
CONSENT AGREEMENT
On July 29 – August 2, August 5 – 9, 12 – 16, and 19 – 23, 2019, representatives of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) inspected Hess North
Dakota Pipelines LLC (Hess or Respondent) Red Sky System in Minot, North Dakota.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated March 2, 2021, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty and
Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice
proposed finding that Hess had violated one provision of 49 C.F.R. Part 194, nine provisions of
49 C.F.R. Part 195, and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the
alleged violations, and to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $127,600. Three of the alleged
violations were brought as warning items.
On April 1, 2021, Hess responded to the Notice and contested Item 2 in full, requested an
amendment to deadline to complete the actions described in the proposed compliance order for
Item 4 and 6, requested that the proposed compliance order for Item 7 be withdrawn as moot,
and requested a reduction in the proposed civil penalty for Items 5, 8, and 9 of the Notice
(Response). In its Response, Hess also requested a hearing on these issues as well as the
opportunity for an informal meeting with PHMSA to discuss the challenged items. Subsequent
to the filing of the Response, Hess and PHMSA (collectively the Parties) met telephonically on
numerous occasions to discuss a possible resolution of the case in lieu of proceeding to a
hearing. During the meetings, the Parties offered additional information regarding the
allegations, and an agreement was reached that resolves all of the issues in the Notice. As such,
on July 12, 2021, Hess formally withdrew its request for a hearing.
Having agreed that settlement of this proceeding will avoid further administrative proceedings or
litigation and will serve the public interest by promoting safety and protection of the



environment, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 190, and upon consent and agreement of Hess
and PHMSA, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
I. General Provisions
1. Respondent acknowledges that as the operator of the pipeline facilities subject to
the Notice, Respondent and its referenced natural gas pipeline facilities are subject to the
jurisdiction of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations
and administrative orders issued thereunder. For purposes of this Agreement, Respondent
acknowledges that it received proper notice of PHMSA's action in this proceeding and that the
Notice states claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60101, et seq., and
the regulations and orders issued thereunder.
2. After Hess returns this signed Agreement to PHMSA, the Agency’s representative
will present it to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, recommending that the
Associate Administrator adopt the terms of this Agreement by issuing an administrative order
(Consent Order) incorporating the terms of this Agreement. The terms of this Agreement
constitute an offer of settlement until accepted by the Associate Administrator. Once accepted, the
Associate Administrator will issue a Consent Order incorporating the terms of this Agreement
3. Respondent consents to the issuance of the Consent Order, and hereby waives
any further procedural requirements with respect to its issuance. Respondent waives all rights to
contest the adequacy of notice, or the validity of the Consent Order or this Agreement, including
all rights to administrative or judicial hearings or appeals, except as set forth herein.
4. This Agreement shall apply to and be binding upon PHMSA and Hess, its officers,
directors, and employees, and its successors, assigns, or other entities or persons otherwise bound
by law. Respondent agrees to provide a copy of this Agreement and any incorporated work plans
and schedules to all of Hess’s officers, employees, and agents whose duties might reasonably
include compliance with this Agreement.
5. This Agreement constitutes the final, complete and exclusive agreement and
understanding between the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in this Agreement.
The Parties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements or understandings
relating to settlement other than those expressly contained in this Agreement, except that the
terms of this Agreement may be construed by reference to the Notice.
6. Nothing in this Agreement affects or relieves Respondent of its responsibility to
comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101,
et seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. Nothing in this Agreement alters
PHMSA's right of access, entry, inspection, and information gathering or PHMSA's authority to
bring enforcement actions against Hess pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, the
regulations and orders issued thereunder, or any other provision of Federal or State law.
7. For all transfers of ownership or operating responsibility of Hess’s pipeline system
referenced herein, Hess will provide a copy of this Agreement to the prospective transferee at



least 30 days prior to such transfer. Hess will provide written notice of the transfer to the PHMSA
Central Regional Director no later than 60 days after the transfer occurs.
8. This Agreement does not waive or modify any Federal, State, or local laws or
regulations that are applicable to Respondent’s pipeline systems. This Agreement is not a
permit, or a modification of any permit, under any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations.
Hess remains responsible for achieving and maintaining compliance with all applicable Federal,
State, and local laws, regulations and permits.
9. This Agreement does not create rights in, or grant any cause of action to, any
third party not party to this Agreement. The U.S. Department of Transportation is not liable for
any injuries or damages to persons or property arising from acts or omissions of Respondent or
its officers, employees, or agents carrying out the work required by this Agreement. Hess agrees
to hold harmless the U.S. Department of Transportation, its officers, employees, agents, and
representatives from any and all causes of action arising from any acts or omissions of
Respondent or its contractors in carrying out any work required by this Agreement.
10. Upon issuance of the Consent Order, the Parties agree to the following terms.
II. Warning Items 1, 3, and 10 of the Notice:
11. Allegations of Violation – 49 C.F.R. §§ 194.7 (Items 1); 195.402(a) (Item 3); and
195.579(c) (Item 10): These Items were issued as warning in the Notice, requiring no further action
by Hess. Hess did not contest these Items. As such, these Items remain as warning as written in
the Notice.
III. Item 2 of the Notice:
12. Allegation of Violation – 49 C.F.R. § 195.208: With respect to Item 2 of the
Notice, PHMSA agrees to withdraw this Item due to Hess’s commitment to perform the
following mandated compliance action.
13. Compliance Action: Hess shall perform the following compliance action, to be
completed within 22 weeks from the Effective Date of this Agreement:
(a) Hess shall move/install a pressure control valve or emergency shutdown valve
(ESDV) upstream of the piping to the pig launcher on the Hawkeye Gas Facility
NGL skid but downstream of the welded support, as identified in the Notice.
(b) The specific location of the newly installed/relocated ESDV shall be consistent with
the location identified on Exhibit A of this Agreement.
(c) The newly installed/relocated ESDV will be considered the demarcation point
between the non-jurisdictional “in-plant piping system” associated with the Hawkeye
Gas Facility and the PHMSA jurisdictional pipeline facilities, subject to operational
and design changes that may occur in the future.



IV. Item 4 of the Notice:
14. Item 4 - Violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.402(c)(13)): With respect to Item 4 of the
Notice, the Parties agree that Hess violated § 192.402(c)(13), as alleged in the Notice. The
Parties acknowledge that PHMSA may choose to consider this Item to be a prior offense in any
future PHMSA enforcement action taken against Hess.
15. Compliance Order for Item 4: In regard to Item 4 of the Notice pertaining to
periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the
procedures used in normal operation and maintenance, Hess must complete development of a
review process and send to the Central Region Director within 60 days of the Effective Date of
this Agreement. The first run implementation of the program must begin within 90 days of the
Effective Date of this Agreement, and documentation of the results submitted to the Central
Region Director within 360 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
V. Item 5 of the Notice:
16. Item 5 – Violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a): With respect to Item 5 of the
Notice, Hess agrees that it violated § 195.428(a), as alleged in the Notice. The Parties
acknowledge that PHMSA may choose to consider this Item to be a prior offense in any future
PHMSA enforcement action taken against Hess.
17. for this violation.
Civil Penalty for Item 5: Hess shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of $60,000
VI. Item 6 of the Notice:
18. Item 6 – Violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(13): With respect to Item 6 of the
Notice, Hess agrees that it violated § 195.452(f)(13), as alleged in the Notice. The Parties
acknowledge that PHMSA may choose to consider this Item to be a prior offense in any future
PHMSA enforcement action taken against Hess.
19. Compliance Order for Item 6: In regard to Item 6 of the Notice pertaining to
identifying preventive and mitigative (P&M) measures to protect high consequence areas, Hess
must complete development of the procedures and send to the Central Region Director by March
30, 2022. The first run implementation of the program must begin within 90 days thereafter, and
documentation of the results submitted to the Central Region Director within 180 days after
completion of the first run implementation of the program.
VII. Item 7 of the Notice:
20. Item 7 – Violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(a): With respect to Item 7 of the
Notice, Hess agrees that it violated § 195.579(a), as alleged in the Notice. The Parties
acknowledge that PHMSA may choose to consider this Item to be a prior offense in any future
PHMSA enforcement action taken against Hess.
21. Proposed Compliance Order for Item 7: In regard to Item 7 of the Notice
pertaining to investigating and mitigating the corrosive effects of hazardous liquids on its



pipelines, Hess has provided to PHMSA documentation of completion of the compliance activity
proposed in the Notice. As such, no further compliance actions are required of Hess with regard
to this violation.
VIII. Item 8 of the Notice:
22. Item 8 – Violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(b)(1): With respect to Item 8 of the
Notice, Hess agrees that it violated § 195.579(b)(1), as alleged in the Notice. The Parties
acknowledge that PHMSA may choose to consider this Item to be a prior offense in any future
PHMSA enforcement action taken against Hess.
23. for this violation.
Civil Penalty for Item 8: Hess shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of $10,000
IX. Item 9 of the Notice:
24. Item 9 – Violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(c): With respect to Item 9 of the
Notice, Hess agrees that it violated § 195.579(c), as alleged in the Notice. The Parties
acknowledge that PHMSA may choose to consider this Item to be a prior offense in any future
PHMSA enforcement action taken against Hess.
25. for this violation.
Civil Penalty for Item 9: Hess shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of $12,000
X. Enforcement
26. This Agreement is subject to all enforcement authorities available to PHMSA under
49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and 49 C.F.R. Part 190, including administrative civil penalties under
49 U.S.C. § 60122, of up to $222,504 per violation for each day the violation continues and referral
of the case to the Attorney General for judicial enforcement, if PHMSA determines that
Respondent is not complying with the terms of this Agreement in accordance with determinations
made by the Director, or if appealed, in accordance with decisions of the Associate Administrator.
The maximum civil penalty amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety:
Inflation Adjustment of Maximum Civil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).
XI. Dispute Resolution
27. The Director and Hess will informally attempt to resolve any disputes arising under
this Agreement, including but not limited to any decision of the Director. If Hess and the Director
are unable to informally resolve the dispute within 15 calendar days after the dispute is first raised,
in writing, to the Director, Hess may submit a written request for a determination resolving the
dispute from the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA. Such request must be made
in writing and provided to the Director, counsel for the Central Region, and to the Associate
Administrator for Pipeline Safety, no later than 10 calendar days from the 15 day deadline for
informal resolution referenced in this paragraph. Along with its request, Hess must provide the
Associate Administrator with all information Hess believes is relevant to the dispute. Decisions of
the Associate Administrator under this paragraph will constitute final agency action. The existence
of a dispute and PHMSA’s consideration of matters placed in dispute will not excuse, toll, or



suspend any term or timeframe for completion of any work to be performed under this
Agreement during the pendency of the dispute resolution process, except as agreed by the
Director or the Associate Administrator in writing, or ordered by a court of competent
jurisdiction.
XII. Effective Date
28. The term “Effective Date,” as used herein, is the date on which the Consent Order
is issued by the Associate Administrator, PHMSA, incorporating the terms of this Agreement.
XIII. Modification
29. The terms of this Agreement may be modified by mutual agreement of the Parties.
Such modifications must b
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 94085