{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 42021029NOPV","title":"MOBIL  PIPE  LINE COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2021-06-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.412(a), 195.420(b), 195.432(b), 195.505(b), 195.505(g), 195.555, 195.573(a)(1), 195.573(c), 195.573(d), 195.573(e).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42021029nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42021029nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42021029nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/42021029NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving MOBIL  PIPE  LINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.412(a),  195.420(b),  195.432(b),  195.505(b),  195.505(g),  195.555,  195.573(a)(1),  195.573(c),  195.573(d),  195.573(e). The case was opened on 2021-06-03 and is reported as closed as of 2022-05-10. Proposed civil penalty: $146,300. Assessed civil penalty: $132,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n42021029NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_05102022_(20-172335).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021029NOPV/42021029NOPV_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_05102022_(20-172335).pdf\n\n42021029NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_05102022_(20-172335)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021029NOPV/42021029NOPV_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_05102022_(20-172335)_text.pdf\n\n42021029NOPV_Final Order_12282021_(20-172335).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021029NOPV/42021029NOPV_Final%20Order_12282021_(20-172335).pdf\n\n42021029NOPV_Final Order_12282021_(20-172335)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021029NOPV/42021029NOPV_Final%20Order_12282021_(20-172335)_text.pdf\n\n42021029NOPV_Operator Petition for Reconsideration (Part 1)_01182022_(20-172335).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021029NOPV/42021029NOPV_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration%20(Part%201)_01182022_(20-172335).pdf\n\n42021029NOPV_Operator Petition for Reconsideration (Part 2)_01182022_(20-172335).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021029NOPV/42021029NOPV_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration%20(Part%202)_01182022_(20-172335).pdf\n\n42021029NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_08162021_(20-172335).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021029NOPV/42021029NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_08162021_(20-172335).pdf\n\n42021029NOPV_PCP PCO_06032021_(20-172335).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021029NOPV/42021029NOPV_PCP%20PCO_06032021_(20-172335).pdf\n\n42021029NOPV_PCP PCO_06032021_(20-172335)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021029NOPV/42021029NOPV_PCP%20PCO_06032021_(20-172335)_text.pdf\n\n42021029NOPV_Final Order_12282021_(20-172335)_text.pdf\n\nDecember 28, 2021\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: steven.a.yatauro@exxonmobil.com\nMr. Steven A. Yatauro\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company\n22777 Springwoods Village Parkway\nSpring, Texas 77389\nRe: CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV\nDear Mr. Yatauro:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $132,500, and specifies actions that need to be\ntaken by ExxonMobil Pipeline Company to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The\npenalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and\nthe terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region,\nthis enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the\ndate 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, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMs. Caroline Henderson, Safety, Security, Health and Environmental Manager,\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company, caroline.b.henderson@exxonmobil.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 )\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween June 15, 2020, and October 30, 2020, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted on-site pipeline safety inspections of the facilities and records of ExxonMobil\nPipeline Company (ExxonMobil or Respondent) in and around Lockport and Patoka, Illinois.1\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company, an affiliate of Exxon Mobil Corporation, transports crude oil,\nrefined products, liquified petroleum gases, natural gases, and chemical feedstocks through more\nthan 4,000 miles of pipeline and facilities in California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana,\nMassachusetts, Montana, Rhode Island, and Texas.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated June 3, 2021, 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 ExxonMobil had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195,\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $146,300 for the alleged violations, and proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also included\nan additional five warning items pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, which required no further\naction, but warned the operator to correct the probable violations or face possible future\nenforcement action\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, ExxonMobil responded to the\nNotice by letter dated August 16, 2021 (Response). ExxonMobil contested one of the\nallegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested that the\n1 The PHMSA representatives inspected ExxonMobil’s facilities operating under Mobil Pipeline Company,\nMustang Pipeline LLC, and the ExxonMobil Pipeline Company. See Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation\nReport), (June 3, 2021), on file with PHSMA, at 1.\n2 ExxonMobil Pipeline Company: Know More, https://www.exxonmobilpipeline.com/en/know-more (last accessed\nNov. 1, 2021).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV\nPage 2\nproposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has\nwaived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b), which states:\n§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(a)….\n(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at\nleast twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that\nit is functioning properly.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) by failing to inspect each\nmainline valve to determine that it is functioning properly at intervals not exceeding 7½ months\nbut at least twice each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that 29 inspections\nexceeded the 7½ month interval between 2018 and 2019.\nIn its Response, ExxonMobil did not contest the exceedances PHMSA cited. Instead, it\ncontested the proposed civil penalty for Item 2 and requested a reduction.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.420(b) by failing to inspect each mainline valve to determine that it is functioning properly\nat intervals not exceeding 7½ months but at least twice each calendar year. Respondent’s\nargument regarding the proposed civil penalty for this violation is addressed in the Assessment\nof Penalty section below.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), which states:\n§ 195.432(b) Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n(a)….\n(b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service\natmospheric and low-pressure steel above-ground breakout tanks according\nto API Std 653 (exception section 6.4.3, Alternative Internal Inspection\nInterval) (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). However, if structural\nconditions prevent access to the tank bottom, its integrity may be assessed\naccording to a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual\nunder § 195.402(c)(3). The risk-based internal inspection procedures in\nAPI Std 653, section 6.4.3 cannot be used to determine the internal\ninspection interval.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to inspect the\nphysical integrity of in-service atmospheric above ground breakout tanks in accordance with API\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV\nPage 3\nStd 653 and its written operating procedures. Specifically, the Notice alleged that an out-of-\nservice inspection report for in-service Breakout Tank #901, at Lockport Terminal (Date:\n5/17/17), included a statement regarding “illegal patches” under its shell section. The statement\nsaid these illegal patches must be addressed when the tank bottom is replaced. However,\nExxonMobil did not provide any documentation that the illegal patch deficiency was reviewed or\naddressed by the Tank Maintenance Specialist (TMS) in accordance with its Tank Inspection\nProgram Procedure.\nIn its Response, ExxonMobil stated it had erroneously included the page listing the illegal\npatches in the report, and that it was not related to Breakout Tank #901. Respondent provided an\nupdated API Std 653 report page.3 ExxonMobil further stated that the TMS verified the API Std\n653 report and associated repair plan for Tank #901. Lastly, ExxonMobil asserted it believes it\ncompleted the inspection in accordance with its operating procedures.\nHaving reviewed the updated report page and Respondent’s explanation of actions, I find\nExxonMobil did not provide any documentation demonstrating that the TMS reviewed the API\nStd 653 report or associated repair plan for Breakout Tank #901. Rather, it only provided the\nupdated report page and unsupported statements in its Response that it “believes that the\ninspection was completed as per [ExxonMobil’s] procedures.”\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.432(b) by failing to inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric breakout tanks\nin accordance with API Std 653 and its written operating procedures.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b), which states:\n§ 195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a)….\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks\nare qualified;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b) by failing to ensure through\nevaluation that individuals performing covered tasks were qualified. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Respondent failed to ensure that its inspector performing in-service external tank\ninspections was qualified for a period during calendar years 2017 to 2018.\nIn its Response, ExxonMobil did not contest the qualification gap cited by PHMSA. Instead, it\ncontested the proposed civil penalty for Item 4 and requested a reduction.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.505(b) by failing to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks\nwere qualified. ExxonMobil’s argument regarding the proposed civil penalty for this violation is\n3 Respondent’s Response to the Notice (Response), Exhibit A.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV\nPage 4\naddressed in the Assessment of Penalty section below.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(g), which states:\n§ 195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a)….\n(g) Identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which evaluation of\nthe individual’s qualifications is needed;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(g) by failing to have and\nfollow a written qualification program that included provisions to identify covered tasks and the\nintervals at which evaluation of an individual's qualification is needed. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged Respondent failed to follow its written Operator Qualification procedures for\nrequalifying its employees for eight applicable covered tasks within the frequencies identified in\nSection 4.3- Requalification/Subsequent Qualification of its written Operator Qualification\nProgram.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, after considering all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(g) by failing to follow its written\nOperator Qualification procedures for requalifying its employees for eight applicable covered\ntasks within the frequencies identified in its Operator Qualification Program.\nItem 10: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e), which states:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a)….\n(e) Corrective action. You must correct any identified deficiency in\ncorrosion control as required by § 195.401(b). However, if the deficiency\ninvolves a pipeline in an integrity management program under § 195.452,\nyou must correct the deficiency as required by § 195.452(h).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e) by failing to correct any\nidentified deficiencies in corrosion control as required by § 195.401(b). Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that ExxonMobil’s atmospheric corrosion inspections included deficiencies such as\ndisbonded paint and coatings, active corrosion, and direct contact between pipe supports and\npipe. The Notice also alleged that ExxonMobil’s annual surveys included deficiencies such as\nmissing or damaged test stations found over consecutive years and inadequate survey readings.\nIn its Response, ExxonMobil did not contest the deficiencies. Instead, Respondent stated it\nconducted refresher training for applicable personnel on the procedures to document and retain\nrecords of corrective actions taken for corrosion control deficiencies. It provided documentation\nof this training.4\n4 Response, Exhibit C.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV\nPage 5\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.573(e) by failing to take action to correct any identified deficiencies in corrosion control as\nrequired by § 195.401(b).\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken 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\nbecause of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice\nproposed a total civil penalty of $146,300 for the violations cited above.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $114,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 195.420(b), for failing to inspect each mainline valve to determine that it is functioning\nproperly at intervals not exceeding 7½ months but at least twice each calendar year.\nWith regard to the history of Respondent’s prior offenses, in its Response, ExxonMobil asserted\nthat PHMSA incorrectly found it had five prior offenses in the five years preceding the date of\nthe Notice.6 Respondent stated that four of the five prior offenses (Four Prior Offenses) listed in\nthe Violation Report relate to a Final Order issued by PHMSA on October 1, 2015 (2015 Final\nOrder). Respondent petitioned for reconsideration and PHMSA subsequently affirmed the 2015\nFinal Order by a Decision on Petition for Reconsideration issued on April 1, 2016. In that case,\nExxonMobil then petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review. By a\ndecision issued August 14, 2017, the Court affirmed four of the nine violations and remanded the\nmatter for PHMSA to re-evaluate the civil penalty associated with one of those items. PHMSA\nthereafter issued an Order on Remand on August 7, 2018, reducing the civil penalty for that item.\nRespondent argued that the Violation Report incorrectly associated the Four Prior Offenses with\nthe August 7, 2018, date of the Order on Remand in its history of prior offenses when it should\nhave been connected to the date of the 2015 Final Order. Respondent argued further that even if\nthe Four Prior Offences were attributed to the date of the Decision on Petition for\n5 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.\n6 See Violation Report, at 2-3.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV\nPage 6\nReconsideration on April 1, 2016, more than five years had passed prior to the issuance of the\nNotice. Therefore, ExxonMobil argued, the Four Prior Offenses should not have been\nconsidered in the calculation for the proposed civil penalty.\nPursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Director submitted a written evaluation of the response material\nsubmitted by Respondent and recommended reducing the civil penalty. I agree. The Four Prior\nOffenses were incorrectly dated for purposes of considering Respondent’s prior offenses and\nshould instead be dated based on the April 1, 2016, Decision on Petition for Reconsideration.\nFurther, because the Decision on Petition for Reconsideration was issued on April 1, 2016,\nwhich is more than five years prior to the issuance of the Notice in this case, the Four Prior\nOffenses should be excluded from the penalty calculation for Item 2.7\nConsidering the above, I agree that the Violation Report incorrectly found a history of five prior\noffenses in the five years preceding the date of the Notice when the Respondent only has one\nprior offense during this period. Based upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a reduced civil\npenalty of $109,400 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b).\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $31,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.505(b), for failing to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks\nwere qualified. ExxonMobil did not contest this allegation of violation but similarly argued that\nthe history of prior offenses should be corrected because four of the five prior offenses listed\noccurred outside of the five-year period prior to the date the Notice was issued. Once again,\nhaving reviewed the information, I agree. Accordingly, I find that the record supports a\nreduction in the number of prior offenses from five findings of violation to one.\nBased upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $23,100 for violation\nof 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $132,500.\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 $132,500 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual\nrate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\n7 For purposes of considering an operator’s history of prior offenses, PHMSA uses a cutoff of five years prior to the\ndate of the Notice, as stated in Part C of the Violation Report.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV\nPage 7\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 3, 5, and 10 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.432(b), 195.505(g), and 195.573, respectively. Under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601. The Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions\nto address some of the cited violations:\nWith regard to the violation of § 195.505(g) (Item 5), the Director indicated that ExxonMobil\nsupplemented its Operator Qualification Program procedures and that the updated procedures\nadequately address the extended qualification frequencies built into its learning management\nsystem.\nRegarding the violation of § 195.573(e) (Item 10), the Director indicated that ExxonMobil\nconducted refresher training for applicable personnel on the procedures to document and retain\nrecords for corrective actions taken for corrosion control deficiencies.8\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations.\nTherefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Items 5 and 10 are not included in\nthis Order.\nWith regard to the violation of § 195.432(b) (Item 3), the Notice proposed that ExxonMobil\nreview all potential deficiencies identified by API Std. 653 out-of-service inspections for the\nLockport Terminal Tank #901 (Date: 5/17/17), and provide documentation of the review and any\nremediation records that address the illegal patches mentioned in the inspection report within 60\ndays of receipt of the Final Order.\nAs noted above, in its Response, ExxonMobil argued that it erroneously included the statement\nin the inspection report regarding the illegal patches under the shell section of in-service\nBreakout Tank #901. It stated the page in question was from another tank project and not related\nto Breakout Tank #901. Respondent provided an updated API Std 653 report page.9 However,\nExxonMobil did not provide any documentation demonstrating that the TMS reviewed the API\nStd 653 report or associated repair plan for Breakout Tank #901. Rather, it only provided the\nupdated report page and stated it “believes that the inspection was completed as per\n[ExxonMobil’s] procedures.” Considering the foregoing, I find that the terms of the Proposed\nCompliance Order for Item 3 have not been achieved.\nTherefore, the Compliance Order terms for Item 3 are included as set forth below.\n8 Response, Exhibit C.\n9 Response, Exhibit A.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV\nPage 8\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is\nordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations\napplicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.432(b) (Item 3), Respondent must review all\npotential deficiencies identified by API Std 653 out-of-service inspections for the\nLockport Terminal Tank #901 (Date: 5/17/17), and provide documentation of the\nreview and any remediation records that address the illegal patches mentioned in the\ninspection report within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nPHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is\nrequested 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.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (see 49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\neach day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195, but\nidentified them as warning items pursuant to § 190.205. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect the\nsurface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline right-of-way, at intervals not\nexceeding three weeks, but at least 26 times each calendar year, by walking,\ndriving, flying, or other appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.555 (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to require and verify\nthat supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of that portion of the corrosion\ncontrol procedures which they are responsible for ensuring compliance;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to conduct\ntests on protected pipelines at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, for the Mokena/Joliet Pipeline from the years 2018 through\n2019;\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV\nPage 9\n49 C.F.R. § 195.573(c) (Item 8) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to electrically\ncheck for proper performance of interference bonds whose failure would\njeopardize structural protection at the frequency of at least six times each calendar\nyear, but with intervals not exceeding 2½ months; and\n49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d) (Item 9) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect each\ncathodic protection system used to control corrosion on aboveground breakout\ntanks to ensure operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with\nAPI RP 651.\nExxonMobil presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection,\nRespondent may 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 this\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and\nmeet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays\nthe payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective\naction, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nDecember 28, 2021\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n42021029NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_05102022_(20-172335)_text.pdf\n\nMay 10, 2022\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: steven.a.yatauro@exxonmobil.com\nMr. Steven A. Yatauro\nPresident & Chief Executive Officer\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company\n22777 Springwoods Village Parkway\nSpring, Texas 77389\nRe: CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV\nDear Mr. Yatauro:\nEnclosed is the Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration issued in the above-referenced case.\nFor the reasons explained therein, the Decision grants your Petition. This is to acknowledge\nreceipt of payment of the full civil penalty amount of $132,500 by wire transfer dated January\n18, 2022. This case is now closed. This Decision constitutes the final administrative action in\nthis proceeding. Service of this decision by electronic mail is effective upon the date of\ntransmission and acknowledgement of receipt 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, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMs. Caroline Henderson, Safety, Security, Health and Environmental Manager,\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company, caroline.b.henderson@exxonmobil.com\nMr. William V. Murchison, Counsel for ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, Murchison Law\nFirm, vince.murchison@pipelinelegal.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 )\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV\n)\n)\n)\nPetitioner. )\n____________________________________)\nDECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION\nBetween June 15, 2020, and October 30, 2020, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted on-site pipeline safety inspections of the facilities and records of ExxonMobil\nPipeline Company (ExxonMobil or Petitioner) in and around Lockport and Patoka, Illinois.\n1\nExxonMobil, an affiliate of Exxon Mobil Corporation, transports crude oil, refined products,\nliquified petroleum gases, natural gases, and chemical feedstocks through more than 4,000 miles\nof pipeline and facilities in California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts,\nMontana, Rhode Island, and Texas.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nPetitioner, by letter dated June 3, 2021, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty,\nand Proposed Compliance Order (Notice).3 In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that ExxonMobil committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 (Items 2, 3,\n4, 5 and 10), proposed assessing a civil penalty of $146,300 for two of the alleged violations\n(Items 2 and 4), and proposed ordering Petitioner to take certain measures to correct several of\nthe alleged violations (Items 3, 5 and 10).\n4 The Notice also included an additional five warning\nitems pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205 (Items 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9), which warned the operator to\ncorrect the probable violations or face possible future enforcement action.5\n1 The PHMSA representatives inspected ExxonMobil’s facilities operating under Mobil Pipeline Company,\nMustang Pipeline, LLC, and the ExxonMobil Pipeline Company. See Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation\nReport), (June 3, 2021), at 1 (on file with PHMSA).\n2 ExxonMobil Pipeline Company: Know More, https://www.exxonmobilpipeline.com/en/know-more (last accessed\nApr. 29, 2022).\n3 ExxonMobil Pipeline, Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order,\nCPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV (Notice) (June 3, 2021) (on file with PHMSA).\n4 Id., at 8-9.\n5 Id., at 8.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV\nPage 2\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, ExxonMobil responded to the\nNotice by letter dated August 16, 2021 (Response).6 ExxonMobil contested the alleged violation\nof 49 C.F.R § 195.432(b) (Item 3), offered additional information in response to the Notice, and\nrequested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced.7 Petitioner did not request a hearing and\ntherefore waived its right to one.\nOn December 28, 2021, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 60117 and 60122, and 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, the\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety issued a Final Order finding that Petitioner\ncommitted the violations as alleged in the Notice (Final Order).8 The Final Order assessed a\nreduced civil penalty of $132,500, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R.\n§190.221, and ordered Petitioner to take certain measures to correct certain violations, pursuant\nto the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217.\n9 The Final Order also included\nthe additional five warning items pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, warning ExxonMobil to\ncorrect the probable violations or face possible future enforcement action.10\nOn January 18, 2022, Petitioner filed a Petition for Reconsideration pursuant to 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.243 (Petition).11 In its Petition, ExxonMobil requested reconsideration of Item 3 of the\nFinal Order, which found a violation of 49 C.F.R § 195.432(b).\n12 It did not request\nreconsideration of the other Items within the Final Order. On the same date, Petitioner paid the\nassessed civil penalty amount of $132,500 for Items 2 and 4.\nStandard of Review\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, a respondent may petition the Associate Administrator for\nreconsideration of a Final Order that has been issued pursuant to § 190.213. Reconsideration is\nnot an appeal or a completely new review of the record.13 A respondent may ask for correction\nof an error or, in limited circumstances, may present previously unavailable information. If a\nrespondent requests consideration of additional facts or arguments, the respondent must submit\nthe reasons they were not presented prior to the issuance of the Final Order. The Associate\n6 ExxonMobil Pipeline Company Written Response CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV, dated August 16, 2021\n(Response) (on file with PHMSA).\n7 Id.\n8 ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, Final Order, CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV (Final Order) (December 28, 2021) (on\nfile with PHMSA).\n9 Id., at 5-8.\n10 Id., at 8-9.\n11 Petition for Reconsideration of ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, dated January 18, 2022 (Petition) (on file with\nPHMSA).\n12 Id.\n13 49 C.F.R. § 190.243(a)-(d).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV\nPage 3\nAdministrator may grant or deny, in whole or in part, a petition for reconsideration without\nfurther proceedings.\nAnalysis\nThe Final Order found that Petitioner violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), which states:\n§ 195.432(b) Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n(a) ….\n(b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service\natmospheric and low-pressure steel above-ground breakout tanks according\nto API Std 653 (exception section 6.4.3, Alternative Internal Inspection\nInterval) (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). However, if structural\nconditions prevent access to the tank bottom, its integrity may be assessed\naccording to a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual\nunder § 195.402(c)(3). The risk-based internal inspection procedures in\nAPI Std 653, section 6.4.3 cannot be used to determine the internal\ninspection interval.\nDuring the on-site pipeline safety inspection, PHMSA representatives reviewed an API Standard\n653 report page stating there were “illegal patches” under the shell section of Breakout Tank\n#901.14 The report page said these illegal patches must be addressed when the tank bottom is\nreplaced.15 However, ExxonMobil did not provide any documentation during the PHMSA\ninspection that the illegal patch deficiency was reviewed or addressed by the Tank Maintenance\nSpecialist (TMS) in accordance with its Tank Inspection Program Procedure.16\nAfter receiving the Notice, ExxonMobil responded that the report page listing the illegal patches\nhad erroneously been included, and that it was from another tank project (not involving a\nbreakout tank) at a different facility in another geographic area and was not related to Breakout\nTank #901.17 Petitioner provided an updated API Standard 653 report page, which did not\nmention any illegal patches; however, Petitioner did not provide the complete out-of-service tank\ninspection report. Petitioner also stated it “believes that the inspection was completed as per\n[ExxonMobil’s] procedures.”18\nThe Final Order determined Petitioner’s response was insufficient to withdraw the proposed\nviolation because it did not provide any documentation demonstrating that the TMS reviewed the\nAPI Standard 653 report or associated repair plan for Breakout Tank #901.19 ExxonMobil only\n14 Final Order, supra, at 3.\n15 Id.\n16 Id.\n17 Response, supra, at 4.\n18 Final Order, supra, at 3; Response, supra, at 4.\n19 Final Order, supra, at 3.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV\nPage 4\nprovided its unsubstantiated statement that it “believed” an API Standard 653 inspection had\noccurred.20 Consequently, Item 3 of the Final Order found that Petitioner violated § 195.432(b)\nby failing to inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric Breakout Tank #901 in\naccordance with API Standard 653 and its written operating procedure.\n21 The Final Order\nincluded a Compliance Order that required ExxonMobil to review all potential deficiencies\nidentified by API Standard 653 out-of-service inspections for Breakout Tank #901 in Lockport,\nIllinois, and provide documentation of the review and any remediation records that address the\nillegal patches mentioned in the inspection report.22\nIn its Petition, ExxonMobil again asserted that it had not violated § 195.432(b) because it had\nperformed an API Standard 653 inspection for Breakout Tank #901.23 In support of its assertion,\nPetitioner provided the complete API Standard 653 inspection report for Breakout Tank #901,\nperformed by U.N.I. Engineering, Inc.,24 and two declarations addressing the tank.25 The\ndeclaration from Petitioner’s Fixed Equipment Engineer states he reviewed the API Standard 653\nreport for Breakout Tank #901 and concluded there are no patches on the shell of the tank.26 The\ndeclaration from a U.N.I. Engineer states the inspection report included in ExxonMobil’s\nsubmission is the correct report for Breakout Tank #901.27 Petitioner had not provided these\nrecords prior to issuance of the Final Order and asserted that it was not aware such additional\ninformation was needed by PHMSA prior to the Final Order.\n28\nBased upon these newly submitted records, I find that Petitioner has satisfactorily demonstrated\nthe evidence relied upon by the Final Order was erroneously identified as a record for Breakout\nTank #901. The erroneous record contained information about a fuel oil tank that was unrelated\nto Breakout Tank #901, which services gasoline. The correct records for Breakout Tank #901,\nwhich Petitioner has provided in full, demonstrate the tank did not have “illegal patches” or other\nissues that impacted its suitability for service.\nAccordingly, the record evidence is insufficient to show that ExxonMobil violated § 195.432(b)\nwith regard to Breakout Tank #901. In making this determination, I evaluated all of the evidence\n20 Id.\n21 Id., at 2-3.\n22 Id., at 8.\n23 Petition, supra, at 2.\n24 Id., at 16-140.\n25 Id., at 14-15, 142-143.\n26 Id., at 142-143.\n27 Id., at 14-15.\n28 Id., at 2.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV\nPage 5\nof record, including the evidence and statements provided in ExxonMobil’s Response and\nPetition.\nCONCLUSION\nAfter reviewing all of the evidence of record, I find it appropriate to withdraw Item 3 of the Final\nOrder and its associated Compliance Order terms. As ExxonMobil did not petition for\nreconsideration of any other Items, the rest of the Final Order remains unchanged. Petitioner\nhas paid in full the assessed civil penalty amount of $132,500 for Items 2 and 4 by wire transfer\ndated January 18, 2022. Petitioner has also completed the compliance terms for Items 5 and 10\nas recognized by the Final Order.","truncated":true,"body_characters":40272}