# CHEVRON PIPE LINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

420085020_Final Order_06032011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420085020/420085020_Final%20Order_06032011.pdf

420085020_Final Order_06032011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420085020/420085020_Final%20Order_06032011_text.pdf

420085020_NOPV PCP_09102008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420085020/420085020_NOPV%20PCP_09102008.pdf

420085020_NOPV PCP_09102008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420085020/420085020_NOPV%20PCP_09102008_text.pdf

420085020_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

420085020_Final Order_06032011_text.pdf

JUN 3 2011
Mr. John. S. Watson
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Chevron Headquarters
6001 Bollinger Canyon Rd.
Building A
San Ramon, CA 94583
Re: CPF No. 4-2008-5020
Dear Mr. Watson:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of
violation and assesses a civil penalty of $100,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the
Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of
the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise
provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. R.M. Seeley, Director, PHMSA Southwest Region
Mr. David Chang, Litigation Counsel, Chevron Pipeline Company
Mr. Andrew J. Cloutier, Hinkle, Hensley, Shanor & Martin, L.L.P. for Chevron Pipeline Co.
Mr. Ben Fred, Counsel, PHMSA Southwest Region
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0075 9299]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
CHEVRON PIPELINE COMPANY, ) CPF No. 4-2008-5020
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an investigation of two
accidents involving the Chevron West Texas LPG pipeline system operated by Chevron Pipe
Line Company (CPL or Respondent) near Hobbs, New Mexico and Snyder, Texas. Chevron
Pipe Line Company operates on its own behalf and for its affiliated companies, pipeline assets
that transport crude oil, refined petroleum products, liquefied petroleum gas, natural gas and
chemicals within the United States. The Chevron West Texas LPG pipeline system transports
liquefied petroleum gas and consists of 657 miles of 6-inch and 8-inch main lines.
The investigation arose out of two separate accidents involving third-party excavators striking
CPL’s 6-inch pipeline and releasing liquefied petroleum gas. The accidents occurred on March
31, 2008 in Snyder, Texas and on April 7, 2008 near Hobbs, New Mexico. No injuries, fatalities,
or evacuations occurred.
As a result of the investigation, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated September 10, 2008, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed
Civil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding
that Chevron had violated 49 C.F.R. §195.442 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of
$100,000 for the alleged violation.
Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated September 30, 2008 to request an extension
of time to respond to the Notice. Respondent was granted an extension and responded to the
Notice by letter dated November 5, 2008 (Response). CPL contested the allegation, offered
additional information in response to the Notice and in mitigation of the proposed penalty, and
requested a hearing. A hearing was subsequently held on March 31, 2009, in Houston, Texas
with an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. At the hearing,
Respondent was represented by counsel. After the hearing Respondent submitted a letter dated
April 1, 2009 correcting a statement in the November 5 response. The Notice proposed one
allegation of violation for two separate incidents. The two incidents are addressed separately.



2
FINDING OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195.442, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.442, which states in
relevant part:
§ 195.442 -- Damage prevention program.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each operator
of a buried pipeline must carry out, in accordance with this section, a
written program to prevent damage to that pipeline from excavation
activities. For the purpose of this section, the term “excavation activities”
includes excavation, blasting, boring, tunneling, backfilling, the removal
of aboveground structures by either explosive or mechanical means, and
other earthmoving operations…;
(c) The damage prevention program required by paragraph (a) of this
section must, at a minimum:
(1) Include the identity, on a current basis, of persons who normally
engage in excavation activities in the area in which the pipeline is located.
(2) Provides for notification of the public in the vicinity of the pipeline
and actual notification of persons identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section of the following as often as needed to make them aware of the
damage prevention program:
(i) The program's existence and purpose; and
(ii) How to learn the location of underground pipelines before
excavation activities are begun.
(3) Provide a means of receiving and recording notification of planned
excavation activities.
(4) If the operator has buried pipelines in the area of excavation
activity, provide for actual notification of persons who give notice of their
intent to excavate of the type of temporary marking to be provided and
how to identify the markings.
(5) Provide for temporary marking of buried pipelines in the area of
excavation activity before, as far as practical, the activity begins.
(6) Provide as follows for inspection of pipelines that an operator has
reason to believe could be damaged by excavation activities:
(i) The inspection must be done as frequently as necessary during and
after the activities to verify the integrity of the pipeline; and
(ii) In the case of blasting, any inspection must include leakage
surveys.
The Notice alleged that CPL violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.442(c) by failing to follow its Core
Liquid Pipeline Operating and Maintenance Procedural Manual (O&M Manual) to monitor
excavation activities to prevent damage to its pipeline system. PHMSA maintained that CPL’s
failure to follow procedures result in two separate accidents involving a third-party excavator
striking CPL’s 6-inch pipeline and releasing liquefied petroleum gas. The two accidents are
addressed separately below:



3
With respect to the March 31, 2008 accident in Snyder, Texas, the Notice alleged that
Respondent failed to follow CPL’s O&M Manual Section 5: Damage Prevention, procedure 5.7,
which states, “A Company representative shall be present when excavation activities occur
within close proximity of a Company pipeline. A Company representative must be present
during and after the excavation activities to verify pipeline integrity, adequate support of the line
while exposed, proper backfill, and to perform the visual inspection of any exposed pipelines.
Refer to MIP-206 for Foreign Crossing.”1
PHMSA asserted that the CPL representative retreated to his vehicle after having a pre-
excavation meeting with the excavator and failed to keep an eye on the excavation to prevent
damage to the pipeline. The agency also asserted that a statement made by CPL’s Senior Facility
Inspector that he was inside his vehicle filling out forms when the excavator struck the pipeline
demonstrated CPL’s failure to follow it O&M Manual, violating 49 C.F.R. § 195.442(c).
In Response, the Company argued that prior to the excavation CPL exposed the pipeline on both
sides of the proposed excavation and clearly and accurately marked the location of the buried
pipeline in the area of the excavation. Respondent contended that after marking and exposing
the pipeline, the CPL representative confirmed that the excavator understood the location of the
pipeline. Respondent acknowledged that the incident occurred shortly after the CPL
representative went to his vehicle near the excavation site. Respondent argued that, contrary to
the Notice, the CPL representative’s presence during the excavation was discretionary.
Respondent further argued that CPL’s O&M Manual refers to a representative being “present”
but does not require that the representative actively “monitor” every moment of excavation
activity. Respondent then contended that the accident was caused by a mistake or error by the
excavator who failed to properly operate the machinery and struck the pipeline that had been
marked and exposed.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, for the March 31, 2008 accident, I find that
Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.442(c). The CPL representative presence in a truck does
not meet the CPL O&M requirement that a “Company representative shall be present when
excavation activities occur … must be present during and after the excavation activities to
verify pipeline integrity, adequate support of line while exposed, proper backfill and to perform
personnel be present to watch, “verify” and “perform visual inspection” not be available in a
the visual inspection of any exposed pipelines”.2 I find that the CPL O&M Manual requires that
truck.
With respect to the second accident on April 7, 2008, which occurred during excavation for
irrigation lines near Hobbs, New Mexico, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to follow
CPL’s O&M Manual Section 5: Damage Prevention, procedure 5.4, which states, “Company
1 CPL O&M Manual, page 206-6; Revised 5/07; Section 6.1 “All CPL Employees involved in Foreign Line
Crossings are responsible for: locating and identifying possible foreign line crossing locations; informing the Field
Team of any possible line crossings; providing the name and phone number of the appropriate Field Team to any
individual who may wish to or who is currently crossing a CPL pipeline; and acting within his/her delegated
authority to consummate the Acknowledgment of Line Crossing Procedure; stop work having the potential to
damage CPL’s pipeline and/or facilities”.
2 CPL’s O&M Manual Section 5: Damage Prevention, procedure 5.7.



4
pipelines located in close proximity must be individually marked and identified.3
Specifically,
the Notice alleged that CPL failed to locate and mark the pipeline after a One-Call ticket
accurately located the trenching in the proximity of the pipeline, violating CPL’s O&M Manual.
PHMSA asserted that a statement by Respondent’s locator that he cleared the One-Call ticket
after he determined that the pipeline did not require locating markers demonstrated that the
Company failed to follow its procedures. As evidence that CPL failed to locate and mark the
pipeline after a One Call ticket was made, the agency described its interview with the
excavator/spotter, who stated that there were no location markers to indicate the presence of
CPL’s pipeline at the time of the incident.
marked the pipeline since there was trenching activity in the vicinity of the pipeline.
4 PHMSA asserted that CPL should have located and
In Response, Respondent maintained that the accident was the fault of the excavator and that it
was impossible for CPL to accurately identify the work site based on the One Call ticket.
Respondent explained that the description in the One Call ticket was inaccurate and did not
describe the second portion of the excavation. Respondent referenced the One-Call ticket, which
stated:5 “From Hobbs N on Denver City Hwy to Stiles Rd. W approx 6 mi to K and B Dairy on
S Side of Rd==Spot 25 ft-wide along marked path along marked area from Stiles Rd. along W
fence approx 3000 ft to 4000ft.” Respondent contended that the description was inaccurate as
the K&B Dairy property is not marked along Stiles Road so there was no means of identifying it;
there was no “marked path along marked area” and Pinson Road is six miles west on Stiles Road,
while the work site was about 52 miles further west of Pinson Road.6
CPL also argued that the One-Call ticket described a trench to be dug along the west fence where
it did not encounter the CPL pipeline but that the trench was actually dug from the northwest
portion of the property at a 45 degree angle from the fence in a southeasterly direction to a center
pivot. Respondent contended that the One-Call ticket did not describe the second portion of the
excavation that actually struck CPL’s pipeline at a point approximately 200 yards from the west
fence. The Company argued that the CPL representative responding to the One-Call ticket sought
3 CPL O&M Manual, page 5-3; Revised 10/07; Section 5.4, Pipeline identification states “Company pipelines
located in close proximity must be individually marked and identified: a) Locate and field mark the approximate
location of Company pipelines through the use of Standard locating techniques. Approximate location means within
24” on either side of the exterior surface of the pipeline. If an excavator needs exact depth and location of a
Company pipeline, the excavator must expose the line and confirm the location. Excavation within 24” of Company
pipelines must be performed by hand digging or other means such as vacuum excavation; b) If there is information
indicating an abandoned Company pipeline within an excavation site, an attempt shall be made to locate and mark
the abandoned facility; c) If practical, locate and mark pipelines when a requester’s representative is present. A pre-
excavation meeting may be necessary for large or unusual excavations; d) Use temporary flags or other more
permanent markers if the type and duration of activity so dictates; e) Mark bend area and other changes of direction
so that the pipe’s location is clearly delineated. Set markers on straight pipeline sections at intervals required by
conditions of the site and job, but not to exceed 100 feet (closer in areas of heavy congestion or when there are
multiple bends along a pipeline route). Facility marking should extend a reasonable distance beyond the bounds of
the requested (whitelined) area; f) If practical, remove markers when the work has been completed.
4 Violation Report, page 4 of 9.
5 CPL Response dated November 5, 2008, Tab 3.
6 Id.



5
clarification of the location of the excavation by making a phone call to the excavator and
cleared the ticket when told that the digging would occur north of the Stiles Road, where there is
no CPL pipeline in close proximity.7
After considering all of the evidence for the April 7, 2008 accident, I find that CPL’s O&M
Manual, page 5-3; Revised 10/07; Section 5.4, Pipeline identification requires that the
approximate location of the Company pipelines must be located and field marked. I also find
that the record substantiates that the Respondent cleared the One-Call ticket without visiting the
trenching site. Although the One-Call ticket may have created some confusion about the
excavation location, I find that had the CPL representative actually visited the trenching site to
locate and mark the pipeline any confusion about the location of the excavation and trenching
activity in the vicinity of the pipeline could have been resolved and the accident may have been
avoided. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.442(c) by failing to
locate and field mark the approximate location of CPL’s pipeline.
This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action
taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s
ability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing
business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without
any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.
The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $100, 000 for the violations cited above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $100,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49
C.F.R. § 195.442(c), for failing to follow its O&M Manual to prevent damage to its pipeline
from excavation activities. The company disputed whether CPL’s conduct was commensurate
with the level of the fine. This regulation provides safety precautions to minimize the risk of
accident or injury to human life, the environment, and property. Respondent is fully culpable for
its failure to follow its O&M Manual, which resulted in an accident. Following each step of the
procedures may have prevented the accident and the release of liquefied petroleum gas.
In terms of the nature, circumstances and gravity of the offenses, mitigation is not warranted
because no injuries, fatalities, or evacuations occurred. Safety is compromised when an
unintended release of gas occurs, as it increases the risk of harm to the public and the
environment. Liquefied petroleum gas is a highly volatile liquid and the accident could have
7 CPL Response dated November 5, 2008.



6
caused an explosion resulting in fatalities and damaging other nearby pipelines.
Respondent provided no certified documentation to demonstrate that the proposed penalty would
affect its ability to continue in business. Respondent has not provided information about the
accidents that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $100,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.442(c).
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b) (3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The
Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.
Failure to pay the $100,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual
rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has the right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of
this Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline
Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC
20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA
will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the Final Order by
the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other
requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of
any civil penalty assessed but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order, including
any required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final
Order becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is
waived.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
___________________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 21417