{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420205015","title":"BRAVO PIPELINE COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2020-10-27","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.571, 195.589(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420205015.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420205015.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420205015","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420205015","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BRAVO PIPELINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.571,  195.589(c). The case was opened on 2020-10-27 and is reported as closed as of 2022-01-14. Proposed civil penalty: $105,500. Assessed civil penalty: $81,300. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420205015_ NOPV PCP PCO_10272020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205015/420205015_%20NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_10272020.pdf\n\n420205015_ NOPV PCP PCO_10272020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205015/420205015_%20NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_10272020_text.pdf\n\n420205015_Final Order_12222021_(17-158457S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205015/420205015_Final%20Order_12222021_(17-158457S).pdf\n\n420205015_Final Order_12222021_(17-158457S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205015/420205015_Final%20Order_12222021_(17-158457S)_text.pdf\n\n420205015_Operator Response to Notice_02252021.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420205015/420205015_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_02252021.pdf\n\n420205015_ NOPV PCP PCO_10272020_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nELECTRONIC MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nOctober 27, 2020\nRobert Peterson\nSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer\nOccidental Petroleum Corporation\n5 Greenway Plaza\nHouston, Texas 77046\nCPF 4-2020-5015\nDear Mr. Peterson:\nFrom January 22, 2018 through May 4, 2018, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code\n(U.S.C.) inspected Occidental Petroleum’s (OXY) Bravo CO2 Pipeline System in Sundown,\nTexas.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected\nand the probable violations are:\n1. § 195.571 What criteria must I use to determine the adequacy of cathodic protection?\nCathodic protection required by this subpart must comply with one or more of the\napplicable criteria and other considerations for cathodic protection contained\nparagraphs 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.2.5 and 6.3 in NACE SP 0169 (incorporated by\nreference, see § 195.3).\n\n\n\n2\nOXY failed to comply with the cathodic protection criteria required by § 195.571, which states\nthat cathodic protection required by Subpart H must comply with one or more of the applicable\ncriteria in addition to other considerations included in the incorporated by reference NACE SP\n0169. In accordance with NACE SP 0169, OXY’s corrosion control procedures require a criterion\nof a negative (cathodic) potential of at least 850 millivolts with cathodic protection current applied,\nwith consideration given to voltage drops other than those across the pipe-to-soil boundary. Based\non the inspector’s review of annual readings (three years of pipe to soil readings from 2015-2017),\nOXY failed to meet the established criteria in both NACE SP 0169 and the operator’s corrosion\ncontrol procedures for the following pipeline segments:\nROW Code/Pipe Milepost IR Free Reading In Volts (Year)\nBravo Slaughter-Anton 8\" CO2 46.190 -.782V (2015), -.795V (2016), & -.809V (2017)\n46.611 -.835V (2015), -.812V (2016), & -.806V (2017)\n46.792 -.832V (2015), -.768V (2016), & -.764V (2017)\n46.970 -.778V (2015), -.717V (2016), & -.715V (2017)\nBravo Dome Station 0.000A -.741V (2015), -.692V (2016), & -.699V (2017)\n0.000B -.761V (2015), -.776V (2016), & -.726V (2017)\n0.000C -.752V (2015), -.802V (2016), & -.748V (2017)\n0.000D -.715V (2015), -.758V (2016), & -.738V (2017)\n0.000E -.689V (2015), -.740V (2016), & -.710V (2017)\n0.000F -.705V (2015), -.727V (2016), & -.719V (2017)\n0.000G - .609V (2015), -.650V (2016), & -.637V (2017)\n0.000H -.690V (2015), -.710V (2016), & -.748V (2017)\n0.000I -.564V (2015), -.564V (2016), & -.630V (2017)\n0.000J -.630V (2015), -.639V (2016), & -.648V (2017)\nBravo 20” CO2 Line 0.010 -.752V (2015), -.661V (2016)\n1.340 -.731V (2015) & -.727V (2016)\n2.910 -.719V (2015) & -.716V (2016)\n4.340 -.728V (2015) & -.746V (2016)\n5.310 -.722V (2015) & -.717V (2016)\n6.920 -.729V (2015) & -.738V(2016)\n7.940 -.754V (2015) & -.766V (2016)\n9.020 -.752V (2015) & -.757V (2016)\n10.960 -.727V (2015) & -.792V (2016)\n15.300 -.719V (2015) & -.794V (2016)\n17.510 -.714V (2015) & -.733V (2016)\n19.850 -.737V (2015) & -.741V (2016)\n22.870 -.759V (2015) & -.770V (2016)\n24.780 -.764V (2015) & -.796V (2016)\n25.760 -.770V (2015) & -.782V (2016)\n27.270 -.808V (2015) & -.805V (2016)\nSheep Mountain/OMS to\nJohnson Mesa\n3.500 -.828V (2015) & -.827V (2016)\n3.950 -.840V (2015) & -.822V (2016)\n13.200 -.748V (2015) & -.792V (2016)\n\n\n\n3\nThe above information was sourced from the Bravo Pipeline All Test Stations Report 2015-2017\nand Sheep Mountain Pipeline All Test Stations Report 2015-2017. The operator did not provide\nany subsequent documentation to the inspector demonstrating remediation or that cathodic\nprotection criteria was met for the identified test stations listed above.\n2. § 195.589 What corrosion control information do I have to maintain?\n(c) You must maintain a record of each analysis, check, demonstration, examination,\ninspection, investigation, review, survey, and test required by this subpart in sufficient\ndetail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that corrosion\nrequiring control measures does not exist. You must retain these records for at least 5\nyears, except that records related to § 195.569, § 195.573(a) and (b), and § 195.579(b)(3)\nand (c) must be retained for as long as the pipeline remains in service.\nOXY failed to maintain its Bravo CO2 Pipeline records in sufficient detail to demonstrate the\nadequacy of corrosion control measures. Specifically, the operator’s atmospheric corrosion\ninspection reports for the years 2014 and 2017 failed to document that timely atmospheric\ncorrosion remediation occurred after pipeline and components were inspected for atmospheric\ncorrosion. The Sheep Mountain Seminole Station 2014 atmospheric corrosion inspection forms\n(Bravo CO2 Pipeline Form PI-0750a) identified several items that required atmospheric corrosion\nmaintenance and repair; however, OXY provided no subsequent documentation demonstrating\nremediation for the reported items.\nIn subsequent communication between the operator and the inspector, the operator provided\ndocumentation demonstrating remediation of the atmospheric corrosion issues identified during\nthe 2014 and 2017 atmospheric corrosion inspections.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for a related\nseries of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and before July 31,\n2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day, with a maximum\npenalty not to exceed $2,132,679. For violation occurring on or after November 2, 2015 and before\nNovember 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per violation per day, with a\nmaximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015,\nthe maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty\nnot to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. We have reviewed the circumstances\nand supporting documentation involved for the above probable violations and has recommended\nthat you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $105,500 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $105,500\n\n\n\n4\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item 1 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Occidental Petroleum. Please refer to the\nProposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.\nWarning Item\nWith respect to item 2, we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved\nin this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment\nproceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct this item. Failure to do so may result\nin additional enforcement action.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nEnforcement Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All\nmaterial you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you\nbelieve that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5\nU.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the\ndocument with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an\nexplanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under\n5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request a\nhearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice,\nthis constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further\nnotice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this Notice, we propose that you\nsubmit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from receipt of this Notice. This period\nmay be extended by written request for good cause.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2020-5015 and, for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nMary L. McDaniel, P.E.\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings\n\n\n\n5\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\n1. 2. Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Occidental Petroleum a Compliance Order\nincorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Occidental\nPetroleum with the pipeline safety regulations:\nIn regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to Occidental Petroleum’s failure to comply\nwith the cathodic protection criteria required by § 195.571 for portions of the Bravo CO2 Pipeline\nsystem, Occidental Petroleum must provide documentation that demonstrates that the Bravo CO2\nPipeline system is in compliance with 49 CFR §195.571. This demonstration must include those\npipe-to-soil test points specifically listed in the table of this letter meeting criteria and must be\nsubmitted to Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration. Occidental Petroleum must comply with this item within 180 days\nfollowing receipt of the Final Order.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Occidental Petroleum maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Mary\nMcDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.\nIt is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n\n420205015_Final Order_12222021_(17-158457S)_text.pdf\n\nDecember 22, 2021\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAILT TO: robert peterson@oxy.com\nMr. Robert Peterson\nSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer\nOccidental Petroleum Corporation\n5 Greenway Plaza\nHouston, Texas 77046\nRe: CPF No. 4-2020-5015\nDear Mr. Peterson:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation and assesses a reduced civil penalty of $81,300. It further finds that Bravo Pipeline\nCompany, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Corporation, has completed the actions specified\nin the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the civil penalty has been\npaid, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective\nupon the date of transmission as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, PE, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Vishal Gupta, President and General Manager, Permian EOR, Occidental Petroleum\nCorporation, vishal_gupta@oxy.com\nMr. Bradley Holland, Bravo Pipeline Company, Pipeline Operations Lead,\nbradley_holland@oxy.com\nCONFIRMATION OF 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 )\n)\n)\nBravo Pipeline Company, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Corporation, )\n)\nRespondent. )\n________________________________________________)\n) CPF No. 4-2020-5015\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom January 22, 2018 through May 4, 2018, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Bravo\nPipeline Company, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Corporation (OXY or Respondent) in\nColorado, New Mexico, and Texas. The Bravo pipeline system consists of two PHMSA-\nregulated pipelines, the Bravo Pipeline (465 miles), and the Sheep Mountain Pipeline (408\nmiles), which deliver CO2 from Colorado and New Mexico to CO2 enhanced oil recovery\n(EOR) fields in the Permian Basin of West Texas and eastern New Mexico.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated October 27, 2020, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that OXY had violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571, proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $105,500 for the alleged violation, and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain\nmeasures to correct the alleged violation. The Notice also included an additional warning item\npursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, which required no further action, but warned the operator to\ncorrect the probable violation or face possible future enforcement action.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, OXY responded to the Notice by\nletter dated February 25, 2021 (Response). OXY contested the allegation, offered additional\ninformation in response to the Notice, and requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced or\neliminated. Respondent 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 195.571, as follows:\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2020-5015\nPage 2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571, which states:\n§ 195.571 What criteria must I use to determine the adequacy of\ncathodic protection?\nCathodic protection required by this subpart must comply with one or\nmore of the applicable criteria and other considerations for cathodic\nprotection contained paragraphs 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.2.5 and 6.3 in NACE\nSP 0169 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571 by failing to comply with the\ncathodic protection criteria required by § 195.571, which states that cathodic protection required\nby Subpart H must comply with one or more of the applicable criteria in addition to other\nconsiderations included in the incorporated by reference NACE SP 0169. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that OXY failed to meet the established criteria (a negative (cathodic) potential of\nat least 850 millivolts with cathodic protection current applied, with consideration given to\nvoltage drops other than those across the pipe-to-soil boundary) in both NACE SP 0169 and the\noperator’s corrosion control procedures for 47 separate pipeline segments across its Bravo\npipeline system. Based on a review of the OXY’s annual surveys (three years of pipe to soil\nreadings from 2015-2017), PHMSA alleged that OXY’s records showed at least 33 test stations\nthat failed to meet the specified criterion for at least two consecutive annual surveys (2015 and\n2016), and in some instances three consecutive annual surveys (2015, 2016, and 2017).\nIn its Response, OXY contested that allegation of violation and stated that it “promptly and\ndiligently worked to take corrective action and that at all times, Oxy maintained adequate\ncathodic protection in its pipeline system in accordance with 49 CFR 195.571.”1 OXY stated\nthat after observing readings less negative than the -850mV ‘on’ criteria during an annual\ncathodic protection survey in November of 2015 for the Bravo pipeline system, it immediately\nincreased the current output from the Bravo Dome rectifier in an attempt to increase potentials.2\nAfter allowing time for polarization and observing no response to the actions taken to increase\nthe potentials, OXY claims that it took the following additional actions: (1) Increased the current\noutput from multiple influencing rectifiers (Bravo dome and MLV3) on the pipeline in 2016; (2)\nElectrically isolated the Bravo Dome rectifier current from the station piping; (3) Acquired and\ninstalled two additional rectifiers on the Bravo Dome and 8” Anton pipeline segments in 2017-\n2018; (4) Conducted a depolarization survey and applied the 100mV polarization criterion to\ndemonstrate that there was adequate cathodic protection on the pipelines in the third quarter of\n2017; (5) Reviewed two inline inspection (ILI) assessments from 2012 and 2017, which found\nvery minor corrosion along the entire pipeline, and specifically in and near where the low\ncathodic protection potentials were observed; and (6) at locations along the pipeline not meeting\nthe polarized potential of -850 mV (instant-off), OXY maintained the 2018 planned rectifier\ninstallations during the second quarter of 2018 and permanently isolated the existing Bravo\nDome rectifier to solely protect the Bravo Dome station.3 These actions resulted in the pipelines\n1 Response, at 1.\n2 Id. at 2.\n3 Id. at 2-3.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2020-5015\nPage 3\nbeing cathodically protected by the new MLV2, MP 46.9 and existing MLV3 rectifiers only.\nAccording to OXY, the 2018, 2019 and 2020 subsequent annual cathodic protection surveys\nshowed that all potentials were more negative than the -850 mV ‘on’ criteria required by the\nNACE and OXY standards.4\nAlthough OXY took documented steps to achieve compliance with the regulation and its own\nprocedures, as outlined above, there is no dispute that OXY failed to achieve the -850mV\ncriterion for 47 separate pipeline segments across its Bravo pipeline system between 2015 and\n2017. OXY’s annual survey records for 2015, 2016, and 2017 showed that the -850 mV\ncathodic protection criteria specified by its procedures had not been met for the 33 test stations\nidentified in the Notice, and OXY does not dispute this fact. In addition, the record contains no\nevidence to show that OXY considered IR drop in determining the adequacy of the cathodic\nprotection, as required by the Part 195 referenced standard and its own procedures.\nOXY argues that it had met the 100mV polarization criterion allowed by NACE SP 0169;\nhowever, the operator’s own procedures specified only the use of the -850mV criterion with\nconsideration of IR drop. OXY did not have procedures in place for using the 100mV criterion,\nand its procedures specifically stated that the -850mV criterion would be used. In sum, it is\nundisputed that OXY had recorded low annual cathodic protection survey potentials on the\nidentified segments for 2015, 2016, and 2017 using the specified -850mV criterion, in violation\nof the regulation and its own procedures.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.571 by failing to meet the established criteria in both NACE SP 0169 and the operator’s\ncorrosion control procedures.\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$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.5\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I\nmust consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue\ndoing business; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to discovery by PHMSA.\nIn addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction\n4 Id., at 3.\n5 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2020-5015\nPage 4\nbecause of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice\nproposed a total civil penalty of $105,500 for the violation cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $105,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 195.571, for failing to meet the established criteria in both NACE SP 0169 and the\noperator’s corrosion control procedures on 47 separate pipeline segments across its Bravo\npipeline system. In addition to the defenses outlined above, OXY attempts to mitigate the\nnoncompliance by stating that it reviewed two Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) in-line inspections\n(ILI) that were performed in 2012 and 2017 to determine if there were indications of external\ncorrosion as a result of its cathodic protection deficiencies. OXY claimed that there were only\nminor indications of corrosion from these ILI runs.\nAlthough I rejected OXY’s argument that the actions it took in an effort to remediate the\ndeficiencies with its cathodic protection system warranted a withdrawal of the alleged violation, I\ndo find that the actions constitute a basis for reducing the civil penalty under the culpability\nfactor. While the actions taken by OXY did not remediate the deficiencies prior to the\ninspection, it is undisputed that OXY found the problem and took documented steps to correct it\nprior to PHMSA’s inspection. As such, OXY should be given credit for these actions when\nassessing the operators’ culpability for purposes of calculating a civil penalty in this case.\nI do not agree that performance of ILI in 2012 and 2017 would constitute a basis to further\nreduce the proposed civil penalty in this case. The performance of a 2012 ILI would not indicate\ncorrosion from cathodic protection deficiencies in 2015, 2016, and 2017. In addition, external\ncorrosion is a time-dependent threat and the specific environment and circumstances of the\npipeline determines the rate of corrosion, and even minor indications of corrosion detected in\n2017 may have resulted from the cathodic protection deficiencies. With regard to the other civil\npenalty criteria that I am required to assess, I find that PHMSA met its burden. The annual\ncathodic protection readings recorded show that OXY failed to comply with the applicable\ncathodic protection criteria required by the operator’s own corrosion control procedures,\n§ 195.571, and NACE SP 0169. This was the case for at least two consecutive annual surveys,\nand in some instances three consecutive years for the test stations identified in the Notice.\nAdditionally, the measures discussed in OXY’s Response provide no reasonable justification for\nwhy the operator failed to comply with the requirement.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a reduced civil penalty of $81,300 for a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.571.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49\nC.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 (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.\nThe Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $81,300 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2020-5015\nPage 5\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those\nsame authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment\nis not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in\nreferral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district court of the United\nStates.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for a violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 195.571. 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 actions specified in the proposed compliance order:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.571 (Item 1), the Respondent provided\nannual cathodic protection survey records for 2018 and 2019 showing that the\npipeline has achieved adequate cathodic protection in accordance with § 195.571, and\nNACE SP 0169.\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.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 2, the Notice alleged probable violation of Part 195, but identified it as a\nwarning item pursuant to § 190.205. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain its\nBravo CO2 Pipeline records in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of\ncorrosion control measures.\nOXY presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to address\nthe cited items. If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent\nmay be subject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a brief statement of the issue(s)\nand meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically\nstays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including any\ncorrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2020-5015\nPage 6\nadministrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nDecember 22, 2021\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":28492}