{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420085020","title":"CHEVRON PIPE LINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2008-09-10","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.442(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420085020.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420085020.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420085020","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420085020","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving CHEVRON PIPE LINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.442(c). The case was opened on 2008-09-10 and is reported as closed as of 2011-06-29. Proposed civil penalty: $100,000. Assessed civil penalty: $100,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420085020_Final Order_06032011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420085020/420085020_Final%20Order_06032011.pdf\n\n420085020_Final Order_06032011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420085020/420085020_Final%20Order_06032011_text.pdf\n\n420085020_NOPV PCP_09102008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420085020/420085020_NOPV%20PCP_09102008.pdf\n\n420085020_NOPV PCP_09102008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420085020/420085020_NOPV%20PCP_09102008_text.pdf\n\n420085020_Operator Response to Notice and request for Hearing_11052008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420085020/420085020_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20request%20for%20Hearing_11052008.pdf\n\n420085020_Final Order_06032011_text.pdf\n\nJUN 3 2011\nMr. John. S. Watson\nChairman and Chief Executive Officer\nChevron Headquarters\n6001 Bollinger Canyon Rd.\nBuilding A\nSan Ramon, CA 94583\nRe: CPF No. 4-2008-5020\nDear Mr. Watson:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $100,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the\nFinal Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of\nthe Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. R.M. Seeley, Director, PHMSA Southwest Region\nMr. David Chang, Litigation Counsel, Chevron Pipeline Company\nMr. Andrew J. Cloutier, Hinkle, Hensley, Shanor & Martin, L.L.P. for Chevron Pipeline Co.\nMr. Ben Fred, Counsel, PHMSA Southwest Region\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0075 9299]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nCHEVRON PIPELINE COMPANY, ) CPF No. 4-2008-5020\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nPursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an investigation of two\naccidents involving the Chevron West Texas LPG pipeline system operated by Chevron Pipe\nLine Company (CPL or Respondent) near Hobbs, New Mexico and Snyder, Texas. Chevron\nPipe Line Company operates on its own behalf and for its affiliated companies, pipeline assets\nthat transport crude oil, refined petroleum products, liquefied petroleum gas, natural gas and\nchemicals within the United States. The Chevron West Texas LPG pipeline system transports\nliquefied petroleum gas and consists of 657 miles of 6-inch and 8-inch main lines.\nThe investigation arose out of two separate accidents involving third-party excavators striking\nCPL’s 6-inch pipeline and releasing liquefied petroleum gas. The accidents occurred on March\n31, 2008 in Snyder, Texas and on April 7, 2008 near Hobbs, New Mexico. No injuries, fatalities,\nor evacuations occurred.\nAs a result of the investigation, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated September 10, 2008, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCivil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding\nthat Chevron had violated 49 C.F.R. §195.442 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of\n$100,000 for the alleged violation.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated September 30, 2008 to request an extension\nof time to respond to the Notice. Respondent was granted an extension and responded to the\nNotice by letter dated November 5, 2008 (Response). CPL contested the allegation, offered\nadditional information in response to the Notice and in mitigation of the proposed penalty, and\nrequested a hearing. A hearing was subsequently held on March 31, 2009, in Houston, Texas\nwith an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. At the hearing,\nRespondent was represented by counsel. After the hearing Respondent submitted a letter dated\nApril 1, 2009 correcting a statement in the November 5 response. The Notice proposed one\nallegation of violation for two separate incidents. The two incidents are addressed separately.\n\n\n\n2\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195.442, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.442, which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.442 -- Damage prevention program.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each operator\nof a buried pipeline must carry out, in accordance with this section, a\nwritten program to prevent damage to that pipeline from excavation\nactivities. For the purpose of this section, the term “excavation activities”\nincludes excavation, blasting, boring, tunneling, backfilling, the removal\nof aboveground structures by either explosive or mechanical means, and\nother earthmoving operations…;\n(c) The damage prevention program required by paragraph (a) of this\nsection must, at a minimum:\n(1) Include the identity, on a current basis, of persons who normally\nengage in excavation activities in the area in which the pipeline is located.\n(2) Provides for notification of the public in the vicinity of the pipeline\nand actual notification of persons identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this\nsection of the following as often as needed to make them aware of the\ndamage prevention program:\n(i) The program's existence and purpose; and\n(ii) How to learn the location of underground pipelines before\nexcavation activities are begun.\n(3) Provide a means of receiving and recording notification of planned\nexcavation activities.\n(4) If the operator has buried pipelines in the area of excavation\nactivity, provide for actual notification of persons who give notice of their\nintent to excavate of the type of temporary marking to be provided and\nhow to identify the markings.\n(5) Provide for temporary marking of buried pipelines in the area of\nexcavation activity before, as far as practical, the activity begins.\n(6) Provide as follows for inspection of pipelines that an operator has\nreason to believe could be damaged by excavation activities:\n(i) The inspection must be done as frequently as necessary during and\nafter the activities to verify the integrity of the pipeline; and\n(ii) In the case of blasting, any inspection must include leakage\nsurveys.\nThe Notice alleged that CPL violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.442(c) by failing to follow its Core\nLiquid Pipeline Operating and Maintenance Procedural Manual (O&M Manual) to monitor\nexcavation activities to prevent damage to its pipeline system. PHMSA maintained that CPL’s\nfailure to follow procedures result in two separate accidents involving a third-party excavator\nstriking CPL’s 6-inch pipeline and releasing liquefied petroleum gas. The two accidents are\naddressed separately below:\n\n\n\n3\nWith respect to the March 31, 2008 accident in Snyder, Texas, the Notice alleged that\nRespondent failed to follow CPL’s O&M Manual Section 5: Damage Prevention, procedure 5.7,\nwhich states, “A Company representative shall be present when excavation activities occur\nwithin close proximity of a Company pipeline. A Company representative must be present\nduring and after the excavation activities to verify pipeline integrity, adequate support of the line\nwhile exposed, proper backfill, and to perform the visual inspection of any exposed pipelines.\nRefer to MIP-206 for Foreign Crossing.”1\nPHMSA asserted that the CPL representative retreated to his vehicle after having a pre-\nexcavation meeting with the excavator and failed to keep an eye on the excavation to prevent\ndamage to the pipeline. The agency also asserted that a statement made by CPL’s Senior Facility\nInspector that he was inside his vehicle filling out forms when the excavator struck the pipeline\ndemonstrated CPL’s failure to follow it O&M Manual, violating 49 C.F.R. § 195.442(c).\nIn Response, the Company argued that prior to the excavation CPL exposed the pipeline on both\nsides of the proposed excavation and clearly and accurately marked the location of the buried\npipeline in the area of the excavation. Respondent contended that after marking and exposing\nthe pipeline, the CPL representative confirmed that the excavator understood the location of the\npipeline. Respondent acknowledged that the incident occurred shortly after the CPL\nrepresentative went to his vehicle near the excavation site. Respondent argued that, contrary to\nthe Notice, the CPL representative’s presence during the excavation was discretionary.\nRespondent further argued that CPL’s O&M Manual refers to a representative being “present”\nbut does not require that the representative actively “monitor” every moment of excavation\nactivity. Respondent then contended that the accident was caused by a mistake or error by the\nexcavator who failed to properly operate the machinery and struck the pipeline that had been\nmarked and exposed.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, for the March 31, 2008 accident, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.442(c). The CPL representative presence in a truck does\nnot meet the CPL O&M requirement that a “Company representative shall be present when\nexcavation activities occur … must be present during and after the excavation activities to\nverify pipeline integrity, adequate support of line while exposed, proper backfill and to perform\npersonnel be present to watch, “verify” and “perform visual inspection” not be available in a\nthe visual inspection of any exposed pipelines”.2 I find that the CPL O&M Manual requires that\ntruck.\nWith respect to the second accident on April 7, 2008, which occurred during excavation for\nirrigation lines near Hobbs, New Mexico, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to follow\nCPL’s O&M Manual Section 5: Damage Prevention, procedure 5.4, which states, “Company\n1 CPL O&M Manual, page 206-6; Revised 5/07; Section 6.1 “All CPL Employees involved in Foreign Line\nCrossings are responsible for: locating and identifying possible foreign line crossing locations; informing the Field\nTeam of any possible line crossings; providing the name and phone number of the appropriate Field Team to any\nindividual who may wish to or who is currently crossing a CPL pipeline; and acting within his/her delegated\nauthority to consummate the Acknowledgment of Line Crossing Procedure; stop work having the potential to\ndamage CPL’s pipeline and/or facilities”.\n2 CPL’s O&M Manual Section 5: Damage Prevention, procedure 5.7.\n\n\n\n4\npipelines located in close proximity must be individually marked and identified.3\nSpecifically,\nthe Notice alleged that CPL failed to locate and mark the pipeline after a One-Call ticket\naccurately located the trenching in the proximity of the pipeline, violating CPL’s O&M Manual.\nPHMSA asserted that a statement by Respondent’s locator that he cleared the One-Call ticket\nafter he determined that the pipeline did not require locating markers demonstrated that the\nCompany failed to follow its procedures. As evidence that CPL failed to locate and mark the\npipeline after a One Call ticket was made, the agency described its interview with the\nexcavator/spotter, who stated that there were no location markers to indicate the presence of\nCPL’s pipeline at the time of the incident.\nmarked the pipeline since there was trenching activity in the vicinity of the pipeline.\n4 PHMSA asserted that CPL should have located and\nIn Response, Respondent maintained that the accident was the fault of the excavator and that it\nwas impossible for CPL to accurately identify the work site based on the One Call ticket.\nRespondent explained that the description in the One Call ticket was inaccurate and did not\ndescribe the second portion of the excavation. Respondent referenced the One-Call ticket, which\nstated:5 “From Hobbs N on Denver City Hwy to Stiles Rd. W approx 6 mi to K and B Dairy on\nS Side of Rd==Spot 25 ft-wide along marked path along marked area from Stiles Rd. along W\nfence approx 3000 ft to 4000ft.” Respondent contended that the description was inaccurate as\nthe K&B Dairy property is not marked along Stiles Road so there was no means of identifying it;\nthere was no “marked path along marked area” and Pinson Road is six miles west on Stiles Road,\nwhile the work site was about 52 miles further west of Pinson Road.6\nCPL also argued that the One-Call ticket described a trench to be dug along the west fence where\nit did not encounter the CPL pipeline but that the trench was actually dug from the northwest\nportion of the property at a 45 degree angle from the fence in a southeasterly direction to a center\npivot. Respondent contended that the One-Call ticket did not describe the second portion of the\nexcavation that actually struck CPL’s pipeline at a point approximately 200 yards from the west\nfence. The Company argued that the CPL representative responding to the One-Call ticket sought\n3 CPL O&M Manual, page 5-3; Revised 10/07; Section 5.4, Pipeline identification states “Company pipelines\nlocated in close proximity must be individually marked and identified: a) Locate and field mark the approximate\nlocation of Company pipelines through the use of Standard locating techniques. Approximate location means within\n24” on either side of the exterior surface of the pipeline. If an excavator needs exact depth and location of a\nCompany pipeline, the excavator must expose the line and confirm the location. Excavation within 24” of Company\npipelines must be performed by hand digging or other means such as vacuum excavation; b) If there is information\nindicating an abandoned Company pipeline within an excavation site, an attempt shall be made to locate and mark\nthe abandoned facility; c) If practical, locate and mark pipelines when a requester’s representative is present. A pre-\nexcavation meeting may be necessary for large or unusual excavations; d) Use temporary flags or other more\npermanent markers if the type and duration of activity so dictates; e) Mark bend area and other changes of direction\nso that the pipe’s location is clearly delineated. Set markers on straight pipeline sections at intervals required by\nconditions of the site and job, but not to exceed 100 feet (closer in areas of heavy congestion or when there are\nmultiple bends along a pipeline route). Facility marking should extend a reasonable distance beyond the bounds of\nthe requested (whitelined) area; f) If practical, remove markers when the work has been completed.\n4 Violation Report, page 4 of 9.\n5 CPL Response dated November 5, 2008, Tab 3.\n6 Id.\n\n\n\n5\nclarification of the location of the excavation by making a phone call to the excavator and\ncleared the ticket when told that the digging would occur north of the Stiles Road, where there is\nno CPL pipeline in close proximity.7\nAfter considering all of the evidence for the April 7, 2008 accident, I find that CPL’s O&M\nManual, page 5-3; Revised 10/07; Section 5.4, Pipeline identification requires that the\napproximate location of the Company pipelines must be located and field marked. I also find\nthat the record substantiates that the Respondent cleared the One-Call ticket without visiting the\ntrenching site. Although the One-Call ticket may have created some confusion about the\nexcavation location, I find that had the CPL representative actually visited the trenching site to\nlocate and mark the pipeline any confusion about the location of the excavation and trenching\nactivity in the vicinity of the pipeline could have been resolved and the accident may have been\navoided. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.442(c) by failing to\nlocate and field mark the approximate location of CPL’s pipeline.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. 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; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $100, 000 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $100,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 195.442(c), for failing to follow its O&M Manual to prevent damage to its pipeline\nfrom excavation activities. The company disputed whether CPL’s conduct was commensurate\nwith the level of the fine. This regulation provides safety precautions to minimize the risk of\naccident or injury to human life, the environment, and property. Respondent is fully culpable for\nits failure to follow its O&M Manual, which resulted in an accident. Following each step of the\nprocedures may have prevented the accident and the release of liquefied petroleum gas.\nIn terms of the nature, circumstances and gravity of the offenses, mitigation is not warranted\nbecause no injuries, fatalities, or evacuations occurred. Safety is compromised when an\nunintended release of gas occurs, as it increases the risk of harm to the public and the\nenvironment. Liquefied petroleum gas is a highly volatile liquid and the accident could have\n7 CPL Response dated November 5, 2008.\n\n\n\n6\ncaused an explosion resulting in fatalities and damaging other nearby pipelines.\nRespondent provided no certified documentation to demonstrate that the proposed penalty would\naffect its ability to continue in business. Respondent has not provided information about the\naccidents that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $100,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.442(c).\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b) (3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $100,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual\nrate in 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.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has the right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order, including\nany required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final\nOrder becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is\nwaived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":21417}