{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420117003","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":"2011-06-29","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.54(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420117003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420117003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420117003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420117003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving CHEVRON PIPE LINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.54(b). The case was opened on 2011-06-29 and is reported as closed as of 2012-03-05. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420117003_Final Order_03052012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420117003/420117003_Final%20Order_03052012.pdf\n\n420117003_Final Order_03052012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420117003/420117003_Final%20Order_03052012_text.pdf\n\n420117003_NOPV PCO_06292011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420117003/420117003_NOPV%20PCO_06292011.pdf\n\n420117003_NOPV PCO_06292011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420117003/420117003_NOPV%20PCO_06292011_text.pdf\n\n420117003_Operator_Response_to_NOPV_PCO_07292011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420117003/420117003_Operator_Response_to_NOPV_PCO_07292011.pdf\n\n420117003_Final Order_03052012_text.pdf\n\nMAR 5 2012\nMr. Randall L. Curry\nPresident\nChevron Pipe Line Company\n4800 Fournace Place\nBellaire, TX 77401\nRe: CPF No. 4-2011-7003\nDear Mr. Curry:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding\nof violation and finds that Chevron Pipe Line Company has completed the actions specified in\nthe Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. Therefore, this case is now closed.\nService of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as\notherwise provided 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. Gary M. Saenz, Team Leader, Chevron Pipe Line\nMr. R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [ 71791000164203306569_]\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 Pipe Line Company, ) CPF No. 4-2011-7003\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn January 26, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), initiated\nan investigation of an accident that occurred on January 26, 2011, on the 10-inch Grand Bay\ncrude oil pipeline operated by Chevron Pipe Line Company (Chevron or Respondent). The\nGrand Bay pipeline is part of the Cypress pipeline system that originates at Chevron’s offshore\nfacilities in the Gulf of Mexico and ends at the Empire-Ostrica Terminal. The Empire-Ostrica\nTerminal is located near the east bank of the Mississippi River approximately three miles south\nof Empire, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana.\nAs a result of the investigation, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated June 29, 2011, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Chevron had violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.54 and proposed ordering Respondent to take\ncertain measures to correct the alleged violation.\nChevron responded to the Notice by letter dated July 29, 2011 (Response). The company\ncontested the allegation and offered additional information in response to the Notice.\nRespondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.54(b), which states:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 195.54 Accident reports.\n(a) Each operator that experiences an accident that is required to be\nreported under § 195.50 shall as soon as practicable, but not later than 30\ndays after discovery of the accident, prepare and file an accident report on\nDOT Form 7000-1, or a facsimile.\n(b) Whenever an operator receives any changes in the information\nreported or additions to the original report on DOT Form 7000-1, it shall\nfile a supplemental report within 30 days.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.54(b) by failing to file a\nsupplemental report within 30 days of receiving additions to the original report filed by Chevron\non February 15, 2011. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Chevron received a metallurgical\nfailure analysis report on or about March 1, 2011, but that as of June 16, 2011, the company had\nstill not filed a supplemental DOT Form 7000-1 with OPS that reflected the changed or\nsupplemental information on the probable cause of the failure.\n1\nThe original DOT Form 7000-1 listed “Excavation Damage by Operator’s Contractor” as the\ncause of the accident and “Previous Damage” as the root cause, but provided no further\ninformation regarding factors that contributed to the accident.2 The metallurgical report,\nconcluded that “[t]he failure of the pipeline occurred by brittle, tensile fracture at an area of pre-\nexisting mechanical damage” and included an explanation of the evidence demonstrating a\nbrittle fracture was well defined by microstructural features revealed by metallographic\n“brittle failure.”3 The report also noted that “[t]he susceptibility of the line pipe material to\nexamination.”\nIn its Response, Chevron argued that it was not required to file a supplemental report within 30\ndays of receiving the metallurgical failure analysis. The company indicated that it had\nconsidered the metallurgical report to be “part of an ongoing internal Root Cause Analysis” and\nstated that the metallurgy results were “not determined to be the only contributing factor.”4\nChevron claimed that there was no change to the information reported in the original DOT Form\n7000-1 until June 22, 2011, when the Root Cause Analysis summary was received, and that\ntherefore a supplemental report was not due until 30 days after June 22, 2011. Chevron stated\nthat it had submitted a supplemental report on June 22, 2011, and therefore had not violated\n§ 195.54.\n1 Notice at 2.\n2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (January 26, 2011), Exhibit A (on file with PHMSA).\n3 Id.\n4 Response at 1.\n\n\n\n3\nI disagree. Section 195.54(b) requires an operator to file a supplemental report after receipt of\nany “changes” or “additions” to the information originally reported. DOT Form 7000-1 instructs\nthe operator to “[d]escribe secondary, contributing or root causes of the Accident” in Part H of\naccident falls within the scope of secondary, contributing, or root causes, and in this case would\nhave been an “addition” to the original report. Therefore, a supplemental report on DOT Form\nthe form.5 I find that information about the material properties of the pipe that contributed to the\n7000-1 was required within 30 days of receipt of the metallurgical report.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.54 by failing to file a supplemental report on DOT Form\n7000-1 within 30 days of receiving changes in the information reported or additions to the\noriginal report.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice, for a violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.54. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation\nof hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director indicates that\nRespondent has taken the following action specified in the proposed compliance order:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.54(b) (Item 1), Respondent filed\na supplemental DOT Form 7000-1 on June 22, 2011, and filed a final\nDOT Form 7000-1 on August 22, 2011.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,\nthe compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a 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 this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\n5 Violation Report, Exhibit A.\n\n\n\n4\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay, the terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":9275}