{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420115016","title":"EXXONMOBIL PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2011-11-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.302, 195.452(h)(2), 195.452(h)(4).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420115016.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420115016.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420115016","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420115016","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving EXXONMOBIL PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.302,  195.452(h)(2),  195.452(h)(4). The case was opened on 2011-11-07 and is reported as closed as of 2019-08-26. Proposed civil penalty: $151,100. Assessed civil penalty: $101,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420115016_Closure Letter_08262019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420115016/420115016_Closure%20Letter_08262019.pdf\n\n420115016_Closure Letter_08262019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420115016/420115016_Closure%20Letter_08262019_text.pdf\n\n420115016_Decision on Petition_07092014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420115016/420115016_Decision%20on%20Petition_07092014.pdf\n\n420115016_Decision on Petition_07092014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420115016/420115016_Decision%20on%20Petition_07092014_text.pdf\n\n420115016_Final Order_06272013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420115016/420115016_Final%20Order_06272013.pdf\n\n420115016_Final Order_06272013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420115016/420115016_Final%20Order_06272013_text.pdf\n\n420115016_NOPV PCP PCO_11072011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420115016/420115016_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_11072011.pdf\n\n420115016_NOPV PCP PCO_11072011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420115016/420115016_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_11072011_text.pdf\n\n420115016_Operator Response to NOPV PCP PCO_12152011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420115016/420115016_Operator%20Response%20to%20NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_12152011.pdf\n\n420115016_Petition_for_Reconsideration_07222013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420115016/420115016_Petition_for_Reconsideration_07222013.pdf\n\n420115016_Final Order_06272013_text.pdf\n\nJUNE 27, 2013\nMr. Gary Pruessing\nPresident\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company\n800 Bell St., Room 741-D\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2011-5016\nDear Mr. Pruessing:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $112,300, withdraws several alleged violations, and\nspecifies actions that need to be taken by ExxonMobil Pipeline Company to comply with the\npipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When\nthe civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined\nby the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final\nOrder is made pursuant to 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, Southwest Region, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nMs. Catherine Little, Hunton & Williams LLP, Bank of America Plaza, Suite 4100\n600 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30308\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n___________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 4-2011-5016\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n___________________________________ )\nFINAL ORDER\nOn March 31-April 1, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the records and procedures of ExxonMobil\nPipeline Company (EMPCo or Respondent) in Houston, Texas. EMPCo, a subsidiary of Exxon\nMobil Corporation, operates approximately 4,000 miles of pipeline transporting crude oil,\nrefined petroleum products, and highly volatile liquids in Texas, Louisiana, and Montana.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued a Notice of\nProbable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) to\nRespondent on November 7, 2011. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice alleged\nthat Respondent committed violations of the pipeline safety regulations in 49 C.F.R. Part 195\nand proposed a total civil penalty of $151,100 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed corrective action to be completed.\nEMPCo responded to the Notice by letter dated December 15, 2011 (Response). In its Response,\nRespondent contested the alleged violations and requested a hearing. Respondent provided\nadditional written explanations by letter dated April 16, 2012. A hearing was held in accordance\nwith 49 C.F.R. § 190.211 on April 25, 2012, in Houston, Texas, before the Presiding Official\nfrom the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA. After the hearing, Respondent submitted additional\nwritten material by letters dated June 29 and August 30, 2012.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\n1 Pipeline system information for calendar year 2011 was reported by EMPCo pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 195.49.\n\n\n\n2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.302, which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.302 General requirements.\n(a) [N]o operator may operate a pipeline unless it has been pressure\ntested under this subpart without leakage . . . .\n(c) Except for pipelines . . . covered under § 195.303, the following\ncompliance deadlines apply to pipelines . . . that have not been pressure\ntested under this subpart . . .\n(2) For pipelines scheduled for testing, each operator shall—\n(i) Before December 7, 2000, pressure test—\n(A) Each pipeline identified by name, symbol, or otherwise that\nexisting records show contains more than 50 percent by mileage (length)\nof electric resistance welded pipe manufactured before 1970; and\n(B) At least 50 percent of the mileage (length) of all other pipelines;\nand\n(ii) Before December 7, 2003, pressure test the remainder of the\npipeline mileage (length).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.302 by operating 27 pipeline segments that\nhad not been pressure tested by the deadlines set forth in the regulation. OPS included in the\nrecord evidence of a spreadsheet prepared by Respondent titled, “Systems Lacking DOT\nHydrotest Documentation” (Spreadsheet), which listed 27 pipeline segments totaling 615.7\nmiles.\n2\nIn its written submissions prior to the hearing, Respondent explained that the Spreadsheet had\nbeen prepared in 1998 as part of its effort to comply with the deadline in 49 C.F.R. § 195.302.\nRespondent produced information regarding the current status of the 27 pipeline segments.\nRespondent contended that: (a) twelve were pressure tested; (b) five were purged of product and\nidled; (c) two were sold; (d) five were exempt from § 195.302 because they were covered under\n§ 195.303; and (e) three were exempt from Part 195 altogether.\n3 At the hearing, Respondent\ndiscussed in more detail the eight segments that it claimed were exempt. Respondent provided a\npost hearing submission with additional records regarding all 27 segments.\nApplicable safety standards\nBeginning in 1971, each newly constructed pipeline transporting hazardous liquids was required\nto undergo a pressure test in accordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 195, Subpart E. In 1994, the\npressure testing requirements were extended to all hazardous liquid pipelines, including those\nconstructed before 1971. Deadlines for testing older pipelines were established in\n§ 195.302(c)(2). In 1998, § 195.303 was adopted to allow operators of older pipelines to elect an\nalternative testing and inspection program to evaluate the integrity of the lines based on\nindividual risk factors.\n2 OPS Pipeline Safety Violation Report, Exhibit 1-2 (Nov. 7, 2011) (Violation Report).\n3 EMPCo letter dated April 16, 2012, p.2 (Pre-hearing Submittal).\n\n\n\n3\nCertain record keeping requirements were established to ensure that any pressure test or\nalternative program complied with the applicable requirements. Operators were required to\nmake and retain for each pressure test documentation including, among other things: pressure\nrecording charts; test instrument calibration data; date and time of the test; minimum test\npressure; a description of the facility tested; and temperature of the test medium or pipe during\nthe test period.4 If an operator elected to follow a risk-based alternative to pressure testing,\n§ 195.303 required the operator to maintain records verifying the risk classifications, the plans\nand schedule for testing, the conduct of the testing, and ongoing review of risk classifications.\nFindings\nThe following findings are made with regard to each of the 27 pipeline segments at issue. The\nsegments are categorized by their alleged disposition according to Respondent. Next to each\nsegment name is a number that corresponds to the order in which the segment was listed on the\n1998 Spreadsheet.\na. Segments that Respondent Claimed Were Pressure Tested\nPCU to Mt. Belvieu Poly Propylene (Segment 2)\nRespondent contended that the PCU to Mt. Belvieu Poly Propylene pipeline segment was\npressure tested in 1981, 2004, and 2009, and therefore the segment was in compliance with\n§ 195.302 at the time of the OPS inspection.\nRespondent submitted a diagram of the Baytown PCU Polymer Grade Propylene System and\nrecords from pressure tests that took place in 1980 on the system.\n5 Hand-drawn diagrams\nattached to the test records depicted about 750 feet of tested pipe. Respondent did not submit\nany test records from 2004 or 2009.\nThe 1998 Spreadsheet indicated the PCU to Mt. Belvieu Poly Propylene segment that did not\nhave adequate pressure test documentation was 0.27 miles or approximately 1,427 feet in length.\nThe evidence fails to demonstrate the entire 0.27-mile segment was pressure tested according to\n§ 195.302. For this reason, I find the segment was not in compliance.\nSt. James to Junction (Segment 4)\nRespondent contended that the St. James to Junction pipeline segment was pressure tested in\n1968 and therefore the segment was in compliance with § 195.302 at the time of the OPS\ninspection. To support this contention, Respondent submitted a single page Pipeline\nQualification Record dated 1968.6\n4 § 195.310.\n5 EMPCo letter dated June 29, 2012, Exhibits 9 and 10 (Post-hearing Submission).\n6 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibit 18.\n\n\n\n4\nThe record submitted by Respondent is not sufficient to demonstrate a pressure test was\nconducted in accordance with Subpart E because the record lacked necessary information such as\na pressure recording chart. Without adequate documentation of a pressure test, I find this\nsegment was not in compliance.\nWebster to Baytown #3 and #6-8 inch (Segment 11)\nRespondent contended that the Webster to Baytown #3 and #6-8 inch pipeline segment was\npressure tested in 2000 and therefore was in compliance with § 195.302 at the time of the OPS\ninspection. Respondent also noted that this segment was idled after the OPS inspection.\nRespondent submitted records from a pressure test that occurred in 2000.7 These records are not\nsufficient to demonstrate a pressure test was conducted in accordance with Subpart E because the\nrecords did not include any pressure recording charts. In addition, the records did not reference\nthe entire 1.08-mile Webster to Baytown #3 and #6-8 inch pipeline segment listed in the\nSpreadsheet. For these reasons, I find the segment was not in compliance.\nBOP to ITC Butadiene (Segment 12)\nRespondent contended that due to a naming discrepancy, this pipeline segment was either the\nBOP to ITC Crude Butadiene system, which was pressure tested in 1979 and 2003, or it was the\nBOP to ITC Product Butadiene system, which was pressure tested in 1981. Since both were\npressure tested, Respondent contended the segment was in compliance with § 195.302 at the time\nof the OPS inspection.\nRespondent submitted records from a pressure test that took place in 1979 on the “Chocolate\nBayou—BOP Cr[ude] Butadiene Sys[tem] (ITC Lateral).”8 Respondent also submitted records\nfrom a test that took place in 1980 on what appears to be a different pipeline, but not the product\nline referenced above. The segment tested in 1980 was the “Chocolate Bayou to Baytown Crude\nButadiene.”9 Respondent did not submit any test records that could be identified for the BOP to\nITC Product Butadiene system or any records from a pressure test in 2003.\nThe records submitted by Respondent are not sufficient to demonstrate that the pipeline segment\nreferenced on the Spreadsheet was pressure tested in accordance with § 195.302 because the\nrecords submitted did not include any pressure recording charts. Accordingly, I find this\nsegment was not in compliance.\n7 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibit 46.\n8 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibit 53. Respondent submitted these records in duplicate for the Chocolate Bayou -\nBOP Crude Butadiene (Segment 24, see below), but did not explain why identical records were submitted for\ndifferent pipeline segments.\n9 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibit 54.\n\n\n\n5\nBoyce to Bunkie (Segment 14)\nRespondent contended that the Boyce to Bunkie pipeline segment was pressure tested in 2000 or\n2001 and therefore was in compliance with § 195.302 at the time of the OPS inspection.\nRespondent also noted that the segment was renamed Melville to Boyce after a reversal in 2001.\nRespondent submitted records from two pressure tests that took place in 2001—one from Boyce\nto Chandler, which covered approximately 21 miles, and one from Chandler to Bunkie, which\ncovered slightly less than 21 miles, for a total of about 42 miles.10\nThe evidence submitted by Respondent does not demonstrate the entire 46.3-mile segment listed\nin the Spreadsheet was pressure tested in accordance with Subpart E. Furthermore, the records\nwere insufficient because they did not include any pressure recording charts. Accordingly, I find\nthis segment was not in compliance.\nBunkie to Anchorage (Segment 15)\nRespondent contended that the Bunkie to Anchorage pipeline segment was pressure tested in\n2000 or 2001 and therefore the segment was in compliance at the time of the OPS inspection.\nRespondent noted this segment was renamed Anchorage to Melville and Melville to Boyce after\na 2001 reversal.\nRespondent submitted records from two pressure tests that took place in 2001—one from Bunkie\nto Hwy 361, which covered approximately 12.31 miles, and one from Hwy 361 to AR Melville\nWest, which covered approximately 19.48 miles, for a total of about 32 miles.11\nThe evidence submitted by Respondent does not demonstrate the entire 51.41-mile segment\nlisted in the Spreadsheet was pressure tested. Furthermore, the records were insufficient because\nthey did not include any pressure recording charts. Accordingly, I find this segment was not in\ncompliance.\nFinney to Boyce (Segment 16)\nRespondent contended that the Finney to Boyce pipeline segment was pressure tested in 2000 or\n2001 and therefore the segment was in compliance at the time of the OPS inspection.\nRespondent also noted the segment was renamed Boyce to Finney after the 2001 reversal.\nRespondent submitted records of pressure tests that took place in 2001.12 The records were\ninsufficient because they did not include any pressure recording charts. Accordingly, I find this\nsegment was not in compliance.\n10 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibits 58 and 59.\n11 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibits 62 and 63. Another record, Exhibit 64, appeared to concern a test on a\ndifferent pipeline segment.\n12 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibit 68.\n\n\n\n6\nStrang Road to Texas City (Segment 21)\nRespondent contended that the Strang Road to Texas City pipeline segment was pressure tested\nin 1997 and therefore the segment was in compliance at the time of the OPS inspection.\nRespondent also noted that this segment is now part of the Fairmont Junction to Texas City\nPropylene System.\nRespondent submitted records from a pressure test that took place in 1997 at “various locations”\non the “Bayport Jct. to Texas City section.”13 An attachment to the test record indicated the test\nbegan at station 444+27 (valve 3506) and ended at station 1058+33 (valve 3524).14 Respondent\nalso submitted several pipeline diagrams.\n15 The station and valve identification numbers from\nthe test record did not appear to correlate to any one diagram in a manner that clearly\ndemonstrated the 2.86-mile Strang Road to Texas City segment referenced in the Spreadsheet\nhad been pressure tested. In addition, the pressure test records were insufficient because they did\nnot include any pressure recording charts. Accordingly, I find this segment was not in\ncompliance.\nTexas Olefins Multi-Products Crossover (Segment 22)\nRespondent contended that the Texas Olefins Multi-Products Crossover pipeline segment was\npressure tested in 1982 and therefore the segment was in compliance at the time of the OPS\ninspection.\nRespondent submitted records from a pressure test that took place in 1982 on the “BOP - Texas\nOlefins Spare Liquid Hydrocarbon Line.”16 Respondent submitted a duplicate of this record for\nthe BOP to Texas Olefins Raffinate segment (Segment 23, see below).\nThe station identification numbers from the 1982 test record did not appear to correlate to the\ndiagram Respondent submitted for this segment. In addition, the records were insufficient\nbecause they did not include any pressure recording charts. Accordingly, I find this segment was\nnot in compliance.\nChocolate Bayou BOP Crude Butadiene (Segment 24)\nRespondent noted that due to a naming discrepancy, this pipeline segment is now part of the\nChocolate Bayou - BPU Butylene System. Respondent contended that it was pressure tested in\n1981 and therefore was in compliance at the time of the OPS inspection.\nRespondent submitted records from a pressure test that took place in 1979 on the “Chocolate\nBayou-BOP Cr. Butadiene Sys (ITC Lateral).” This same record was submitted by Respondent\n13 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibit 85.\n14 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibit 86.\n15 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibit 84.\n16 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibit 90.\n\n\n\n7\nfor the BOP to ITC Butadiene segment (Segment 12, see above). Several of the diagrams\nsubmitted for this segment were also duplicates.\nAs I have already determined for these records in regard to the BOP to ITC Butadiene segment,\nthe records were insufficient to demonstrate a pressure test had been conducted in accordance\nwith Subpart E because they did not include any pressure recording charts. For these reasons, I\nfind this segment was not in compliance.\nClovelly to Raceland 16-inch Import (Segment 25)\nRespondent contended that this pipeline segment was pressure tested in 1966 and therefore the\nsegment was in compliance at the time of the OPS inspection.\nRespondent submitted records from a pressure test that took place in 1966, which were attached\nto a report prepared in 1996. According to the report, the test “was performed on the 6.21 mile,\n#2-16[inch] pipeline segment from Clovelly Junction to LaRose Junction (Import System).”17\nThe evidence submitted by Respondent does not demonstrate the entire 16.79-mile segment\nlisted in the Spreadsheet was pressure tested. For this reason, I find the segment was not in\ncompliance.\nViola to Hess Refinery #2 - 6 inch Line (Segment 27)\nRespondent contended that this pipeline segment was pressure tested in 1999 and 2011 and\ntherefore it was in compliance at the time of the OPS inspection.\nRespondent submitted records from pressure tests that took place in 1999 on the “Corpus Christi\nto King Ranch Gas Plant Propane System-Coastal States to Viola 6[-inch]” and the “King Ranch\nto Coastal States Propane System Viola to Coastal States 6[-inch].”18 The records submitted\nwere insufficient to demonstrate the pressure tests were conducted in accordance with Subpart E\nbecause they did not include any pressure recording charts. Respondent did not submit any\nrecords from a pressure test performed on this segment in 2011. Accordingly, I find this segment\nwas not in compliance.\nb. Segments that Respondent Claimed Were Idled Prior to the Inspection19\nAvery Island to Lydia (Segment 6)\nRespondent contended that the Avery Island to Lydia pipeline segment was idled in 2011, prior\nto the OPS inspection, and has since been abandoned. Respondent further contended that the\n17 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibit 99.\n18 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibit 104.\n19 Respondent contended in its Pre-hearing Submittal that five segments were in compliance because they had been\npurged of product and idled; however, the evidence produced suggested Respondent intended to make this claim for\nfour segments.\n\n\n\n8\nsegment was pressure tested in 2000 and 2005.\nThe pipeline safety regulations do not explicitly recognize a pipeline as “idled,” although the\nterm is commonly used to refer to pipelines in which operations have been temporarily\nsuspended.20 Respondent stated that it uses the term to mean “deactivated and filled with\nnitrogen.”21 The status of any one of the 27 pipeline segments as inactive or idled at the time of\nthe OPS inspection does not by itself excuse noncompliance if Respondent had operated the\npipeline without a pressure test in violation of § 195.302.\nRespondent submitted a report from a pressure test that took place in 2000 on the Avery Island\npipeline.22 The test covered 49,210 feet of 6-inch pipe. Respondent also submitted some forms\nfrom a pressure test that was performed in 2005, although those records were incomplete.\nThe Avery Island to Lydia segment listed on the Spreadsheet was 8.16 miles, or approximately\n43,085 feet in length. That is approximately 6,000 feet less than the amount that was tested in\n2000. The reason for the discrepancy in mileage was not apparent, but the additional mileage\ntested could have been part of the system depicted in a diagram Respondent produced showing\n9.06 miles (47,837 feet) of 6-inch pipe, plus an additional 1.7 miles (8,976 feet) of mixed 6- and\n4-inch pipe.23 Based on this evidence, I find the segment was pressure tested and Respondent\nhas maintained the necessary documentation. Accordingly, this alleged violation is withdrawn.\nWeeks Island to Olivier (Segment 10)\nRespondent contended that the Weeks Island to Olivier pipeline segment was idled in 2010 and\nremains idled at this time. Respondent further contended that the segment was pressure tested in\n2000 and 2005. Respondent submitted pressure test records from 2000 and 2005.24\nThe records submitted by Respondent were not sufficient to demonstrate the pipeline segment\nhad been pressure tested in accordance with Subpart E because no pressure recording charts were\nincluded. Without adequate pressure test documentation, I find the pipeline was operated out of\ncompliance with § 195.302. The status of the segment as idled at the time of the OPS inspection\ndoes not excuse noncompliance.\nBOP to Petrotex Mixed Butylene (Segment 19)\nRespondent contended that the BOP to Petrotex Mixed Butylene pipeline segment was idled at\nsome point prior to the OPS inspection and remains idled at this time. Respondent further\n20 Abandoned pipelines, by comparison, are recognized in the regulations as ones that have been permanently\nremoved from service by safely disconnecting the line from the operating pipeline system, purging of combustibles,\nand sealing to minimize safety and environmental hazards if left in place.\n21 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibit 6, p 2.\n22 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibit 28.\n23 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibit 27.\n24 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibit 46.\n\n\n\n9\ncontended that the segment was pressure tested in 1982. Respondent noted that the segment has\nbeen renamed BOP to TOP Junction.\nThe records submitted by Respondent were from a pressure test in 1982 and appear to contain all\nof the information required by § 195.310, including pressure recording charts and test instrument\ncalibration data. Based on this evidence, I find Respondent has demonstrated the segment was\npressure tested. This alleged violation is withdrawn.\nBOP to Texas Olefins Raffinate (Segment 23)\nRespondent contended that the BOP to Texas Olefins Raffinate pipeline segment was idled in\n2003 and remains idled at this time. Respondent further contended that the segment was\npressure tested in 1982.\nRespondent submitted test records from 1982 for the “BOP - Texas Olefins Spare Liquid\nHydrocarbon Line.”25 Some of the same records were also provided for the Texas Olefins Multi-\nProducts Crossover (Segment 22, see above).26\nThe test record station identification numbers appear to correlate with the diagram of this\npipeline segment and appear to contain all of the information required by § 195.310, including\npressure recording charts and test instrument calibration data. Based on the evidence, I find\nRespondent has demonstrated the pipeline segment was pressure tested. This alleged violation is\nwithdrawn.\nc. Segments that Respondent Claimed Were Sold\nMeans to Ector (Segment 1)\nRespondent contended that the Means to Ector pipeline segment was sold in 2004. Respondent\nalso stated that prior to the sale, the segment did not have to comply with the pressure testing\nrequirement in § 195.302 because the segment had been “derated,” meaning the maximum\noperating pressure (MOP) was established under § 195.406(a)(5) based on 80 percent of the\nhighest operating pressure to which the pipeline was subjected (see § 195.302(b)(1)).\nRespondent submitted a Bill of Sale showing this segment was sold in 2004.27 Based on this\nevidence, I find Respondent did not operate this pipeline during the time period relevant to this\ncase, which is five years prior to issuance of the Notice. This alleged violation is withdrawn.\nBullard to Gate Plant “C” (Segment 13)\nRespondent contended that the Bullard to Gate Plant “C” pipeline segment was sold in 2000.\nRespondent also stated that prior to the sale the segment did not have to comply with the\n25 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibit 93.\n26 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibit 90.\n27 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibit 8.\n\n\n\n10\npressure testing requirement in § 195.302 because Respondent had elected the risk-based\nalternative to pressure testing under § 195.303 (see § 195.302(b)(4)).\nRespondent submitted a Purchase and Sale Agreement showing the segment was sold in 2000.28\nBased on this evidence, I find Respondent did not operate this pipeline during the time period\nrelevant to this case. This alleged violation is withdrawn.\nd. Segments that Respondent Claimed Were Exempt from § 195.302 Under a Risk-Based\nAlternative Program29\nPierce Junction to Luling (Segment 3)\nRespondent contended that the Pierce Junction to Luling pipeline segment did not have to\ncomply with the pressure testing requirement in § 195.302 because Respondent had elected a\nrisk-based alternative to pressure testing covered under § 195.303 (see § 195.302(b)(4)). In\naddition, Respondent contended that the segment was pressure tested in 1961, 1969, and 1992.\nAs noted above, § 195.303 permitted operators to elect a risk-based program for older pipelines\nas an alternative to the pressure test deadlines set forth in § 195.302(c)(2). An operator electing\nthis approach in 1998 was required to evaluate each pipeline segment according to a list of risk\nfactors and to assign each pipeline segment a corresponding risk classification.30 Pressure tests\nwere still required for pipelines constructed of electric resistance-welded (ERW) pipe\nmanufactured prior to 1970 that were susceptible to longitudinal seam failures. Other segments,\ndepending on risk classification, could be evaluated with an inline inspection (ILI). Pipelines in\nthe lowest risk category were not subject to additional measures. Deadlines for testing and\ninspections under the alternative program were specified in § 195.303(f).\nIn accordance with § 195.303(d), all pre-1970 ERW pipe was deemed susceptible to longitudinal\nseam failures unless an engineering analysis showed otherwise. In conducting an engineering\nanalysis, an operator was required to consider among other things: (1) seam-related leak history\nof the pipe and pipe manufacturing information as available, including the pipe steel’s\nmechanical properties and fracture toughness; (2) the manufacturing process and controls related\nto seam properties, including whether the ERW process was high-frequency or low-frequency,\nwhether the weld seam was heat treated, whether the seam was inspected, the test pressure and\nduration during mill hydrotest; (3) the quality control of the steel-making process; and (4) other\nfactors pertinent to seam properties and quality.\n28 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibit 56.\n29 Respondent contended in its Pre-hearing Submittal that five segments were exempt from § 195.302 because they\nwere covered by § 195.303; however, the evidence produced suggested Respondent intended to make this claim for\nsix segments.\n30 An operator electing to follow an alternative program was required to develop the plans and schedule for testing\nby December 7, 1998.\n\n\n\n11\nAccording to Respondent’s record, the Pierce Junction to Luling pipeline segment was\n“[c]omposed almost exclusively of pre-1970 ERW pipe.”31 This means it was required to be\ndeemed susceptible to longitudinal seam failures and pressure tested, unless an engineering\nanalysis showed otherwise. Respondent produced an engineering analysis for the segment\ncompleted in 1999. The analysis concluded that the segment was not susceptible to seam failures\nbased on an evaluation of leak history, design pressure, and pipe metallurgy. With regard to leak\nhistory, the analysis concluded there was no propensity to seam-related failures because only two\nfailures were documented during pressure tests. In one failure, it was noted that “the weld seam\nprovided a weak path along which to grow,” but the root cause of the crack was determined to be\na gouge. Design pressure and pipe metallurgy were found to be within specification. The\nanalysis did not contain any information about the manufacturing process and controls.\nHaving reviewed the engineering analysis for the Pierce Junction to Luling segment, I find it did\nnot give adequate consideration to the weakness along the longitudinal seam discovered at one of\nthe failure sites. The weakness of the seam was a significant finding during the evaluation of\nseam integrity. Even though seam failure was not the root cause of the leak, there was an\nabsence of analysis supporting a conclusion that there was no propensity for seam-related failure\ndespite the weakness of the seam. In addition, there was no information regarding the\nmanufacturing process and controls of the pipe. In accordance with the regulatory presumption\nthat all pre-1970 ERW pipelines are susceptible to seam failure unless otherwise shown, these\nfactors should have weighed in favor of a conservative conclusion regarding susceptibility. I\nfind the engineering analysis did not have sufficient support for concluding the pre-1970 ERW\nsegment was not susceptible to longitudinal seam failure.\nUnder § 195.303, all pre-1970 ERW pipeline segments susceptible to seam failure covered by a\nrisk-based alternative program were required to be pressure tested unless the analysis showed\notherwise, which in this case it did not. Respondent contended that even though it believed a\npressure test was not required, the Pierce Junction to Luling segment was pressure tested in\n1961, 1969, and 1992. Respondent submitted certain pressure test records from 1961 and\n1992.32\nThe records submitted by Respondent were not sufficient to demonstrate the entire pipeline\nsegment had been pressure tested. The records from 1961 did not include pressure recording\ncharts and the records from 1992 did not document a pressure test on the entire 140.9-mile\nsegment. Without adequate pressure test documentation or an acceptable analysis showing a\npressure test was not required, I find the pipeline was operated out of compliance.\nSMI 6A to South Bend (Segment 5)\nRespondent contended that this pipeline segment did not have to comply with the pressure\ntesting requirement in § 195.302 because Respondent had elected the risk-based alternative to\n31 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibit 12.\n32 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibits 14-16.\n\n\n\n12\npressure testing covered under § 195.303. Respondent did not contend the SMI 6A to South\nBend segment was ever pressure tested.33\nThe SMI 6A to South Bend pipeline segment was “[c]omposed almost exclusively of pre-1970\nERW pipe.”34 Respondent produced an engineering analysis completed in 1998, which\nconcluded that the pre-1970 ERW pipe was not susceptible to seam failures. This conclusion\nwas based on an evaluation of leak history, design pressure, pipe manufacturing, and pipe\nmetallurgy. With regard to leak history, the analysis noted two leaks on the body of the pipe\ncaused by outside force damage and no history of seam-related leaks. The vintage,\nmanufacturer, and pipe mill were all considered. No manufacturing records were located from\nthe mill, but the pipe specification license of the mill was considered. The license would have\nrequired the mill to perform pressure tests and nondestructive inspection of all ERW welded\nseams along with visual inspections.\nAnalysis of the metallurgy noted that the pipe was manufactured using high-frequency ERW\nwelding, but the analysis found there had been no normalization by post-weld heat treatment,\nwhich had caused “higher-than-normal microhardness tests.” As a result, the analysis found\ninadequate toughness tests and inadequate shear requirement. There is no further analysis of\nwhether or to what extent those qualities could impact the susceptibility of the seam to failure.\nIn addition, even though the mill’s pipe specification license was considered, there was an\nabsence of manufacturing records for the segment to determine if these processes were actually\nfollowed. Under the presumption that all pre-1970 ERW pipelines are susceptible to seam\nfailure unless otherwise shown, these issues should have weighed in favor of a conservative\nconclusion regarding susceptibility absent further analysis.\nAccordingly, I find the engineering analysis did not have sufficient support for concluding that\nthe SMI 6A to South Bend segment was not susceptible to longitudinal seam failure. For the\nabove reasons, I find the pipeline was operated out of compliance.\nNew Iberia to Sunset (Segment 7)\nRespondent contended that this pipeline segment did not have to comply with the pressure\ntesting requirement in § 195.302 because Respondent had elected a risk-based alternative to\npressure testing under § 195.303. In addition, Respondent contended that the segment was\npressure tested in 1971-1973, and again in 2011 after the OPS inspection. Respondent explained\nthat the segment has now been purged of product and idled.\nThe documentation submitted by Respondent consisted of MOP inventory data sheets and emails\nconcerning a prospective tool run.35 These records do not demonstrate that Respondent had\nevaluated the segment according to the risk factors in § 195.303 or that Respondent had assigned\na risk classification that exempted the segment from pressure testing.\n33 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibit 6.\n34 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibit 22.\n35 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibits 32-35.\n\n\n\n13\nNo additional documentation was submitted to demonstrate the segment had been pressure tested\nprior to the OPS inspection. Accordingly, I find this segment was not in compliance.\nSouth Bend to New Iberia (Segment 8)\nRespondent contended that this pipeline segment did not have to comply with the pressure\ntesting requirement in § 195.302 because Respondent had elected the risk-based alternative to\npressure testing. In addition, Respondent contended that the segment was pressure tested in 1972\nand again in 2011 after the OPS inspection. Respondent noted that a portion of the segment is\ncurrently idled.\nThe documentation submitted by Respondent consisted of MOP inventory data sheets.36 These\nrecords do not demonstrate that Respondent had evaluated the segment according to the risk\nfactors in § 195.303 or that Respondent assigned a risk classification that exempted the segment\nfrom pressure testing.\nRespondent did not submit any additional documentation to show the segment had been pressure\ntested prior to the OPS inspection. Accordingly, I find this segment was not in compliance.\nSunset to Anchorage (Segment 9)\nRespondent contended that this pipeline segment did not have to comply with the pressure\ntesting requirement in § 195.302 because Respondent had elected the risk-based alternative to\npressure testing under § 195.303. In addition, Respondent contended that the segment was\npressure tested in 1971 and 1998. Respondent noted that the segment is currently idled.\nThe documentation submitted by Respondent consisted of MOP inventory data sheets and emails\nconcerning a prospective tool run.37 The records do not demonstrate Respondent had evaluated\nthe segment pursuant to § 195.303 or assigned a risk classification that exempted the segment\nfrom pressure testing. In addition, Respondent did not submit documentation to show the\npipeline segment had been pressure tested prior to the OPS inspection. Accordingly, I find this\nsegment was not in compliance.\nBorregas to Viola (Segment 20)\nRespondent contended that this pipeline segment did not have to comply with the pressure\ntesting requirement because Respondent had elected the risk-based alternative to pressure testing.\nIn addition, Respondent contended that the segment was pressure tested in 2006.\nRespondent did not submit any documentation to suggest Respondent had evaluated the segment\npursuant to a risk-based program that complied with § 195.303. In addition, the pressure test\n36 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibits 36-39.\n37 Post-hearing Submission, Exhibits 40-44.\n\n\n\n14\nrecords submitted were missing necessary data, such as test pressure, duration, and\ntemperature.38 Accordingly, I find this segment was not in compliance.\ne. Segments that Respondent Claimed Were Exempt from Part 195\nSarita to Borregas (Segment 17)\nRespondent contended that the Sarita to Borregas pipeline segment is an unregulated gathering\nline exempt from Part 195 (see § 195.1).\nRespondent submitted supporting documentation to prove this segment is an unregulated\ngathering line. Accordingly, this alleged violation is withdrawn.\nSMI 6B to 6A (Segment 18)\nRespondent contended that this pipeline segment was exempt from Part 195 because it was an\noffshore pipeline located upstream of a production facility (see § 195.1(b)(5)). In addition,\nRespondent noted that this segment was abandoned in 2007.\nRespondent submitted supporting documentation to prove this segment was an offshore pipeline\nupstream of a production facility, which is not subject to the requirements in § 195.302.\nAccordingly, this alleged violation is withdrawn.\nTexaco 11C to SMI 6B (Segment 26)\nRespondent contended that this pipeline segment was exempt from Part 195 because it was an\noffshore pipeline located upstream of a production facility. In addition, Respondent noted that\nthis segment was abandoned in 2007.\nRespondent submitted supporting documentation to prove this segment was an offshore pipeline\nupstream of a production facility, which is not subject to the requirements in § 195.302.\nAccordingly, this alleged violation is withdrawn.\nf. Additional Segment for Which Respondent Provided Records\nHawkins to MidValley Junction\nThis pipeline segment was not listed in the Spreadsheet, but Respondent introduced records for\nthe segment and contended that pressure testing was not required because the segment had been\n“derated,” meaning MOP had been established under § 195.406(a)(5) based on 80 percent of the\nhighest operating pres","truncated":true,"body_characters":141777}