# MOBIL  PIPE  LINE COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

42021029NOPV_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

42021029NOPV_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

42021029NOPV_Final Order_12282021_(20-172335).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021029NOPV/42021029NOPV_Final%20Order_12282021_(20-172335).pdf

42021029NOPV_Final Order_12282021_(20-172335)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021029NOPV/42021029NOPV_Final%20Order_12282021_(20-172335)_text.pdf

42021029NOPV_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

42021029NOPV_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

42021029NOPV_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

42021029NOPV_PCP PCO_06032021_(20-172335).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021029NOPV/42021029NOPV_PCP%20PCO_06032021_(20-172335).pdf

42021029NOPV_PCP PCO_06032021_(20-172335)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021029NOPV/42021029NOPV_PCP%20PCO_06032021_(20-172335)_text.pdf

42021029NOPV_Final Order_12282021_(20-172335)_text.pdf

December 28, 2021
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: steven.a.yatauro@exxonmobil.com
Mr. Steven A. Yatauro
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company
22777 Springwoods Village Parkway
Spring, Texas 77389
Re: CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV
Dear Mr. Yatauro:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $132,500, and specifies actions that need to be
taken by ExxonMobil Pipeline Company to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The
penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and
the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region,
this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the
date of transmission as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Ms. Caroline Henderson, Safety, Security, Health and Environmental Manager,
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, caroline.b.henderson@exxonmobil.com
CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
Between June 15, 2020, and October 30, 2020, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), conducted on-site pipeline safety inspections of the facilities and records of ExxonMobil
Pipeline Company (ExxonMobil or Respondent) in and around Lockport and Patoka, Illinois.1
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, an affiliate of Exxon Mobil Corporation, transports crude oil,
refined products, liquified petroleum gases, natural gases, and chemical feedstocks through more
than 4,000 miles of pipeline and facilities in California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Montana, Rhode Island, and Texas.2
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated June 3, 2021, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the
Notice proposed finding that ExxonMobil had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195,
proposed assessing a civil penalty of $146,300 for the alleged violations, and proposed ordering
Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also included
an additional five warning items pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, which required no further
action, but warned the operator to correct the probable violations or face possible future
enforcement action
After requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, ExxonMobil responded to the
Notice by letter dated August 16, 2021 (Response). ExxonMobil contested one of the
allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested that the
1 The PHMSA representatives inspected ExxonMobil’s facilities operating under Mobil Pipeline Company,
Mustang Pipeline LLC, and the ExxonMobil Pipeline Company. See Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation
Report), (June 3, 2021), on file with PHSMA, at 1.
2 ExxonMobil Pipeline Company: Know More, https://www.exxonmobilpipeline.com/en/know-more (last accessed
Nov. 1, 2021).



CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV
Page 2
proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has
waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b), which states:
§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.
(a)….
(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at
least twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that
it is functioning properly.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) by failing to inspect each
mainline valve to determine that it is functioning properly at intervals not exceeding 7½ months
but at least twice each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that 29 inspections
exceeded the 7½ month interval between 2018 and 2019.
In its Response, ExxonMobil did not contest the exceedances PHMSA cited. Instead, it
contested the proposed civil penalty for Item 2 and requested a reduction.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.420(b) by failing to inspect each mainline valve to determine that it is functioning properly
at intervals not exceeding 7½ months but at least twice each calendar year. Respondent’s
argument regarding the proposed civil penalty for this violation is addressed in the Assessment
of Penalty section below.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), which states:
§ 195.432(b) Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.
(a)….
(b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service
atmospheric and low-pressure steel above-ground breakout tanks according
to API Std 653 (exception section 6.4.3, Alternative Internal Inspection
Interval) (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). However, if structural
conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, its integrity may be assessed
according to a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual
under § 195.402(c)(3). The risk-based internal inspection procedures in
API Std 653, section 6.4.3 cannot be used to determine the internal
inspection interval.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to inspect the
physical integrity of in-service atmospheric above ground breakout tanks in accordance with API



CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV
Page 3
Std 653 and its written operating procedures. Specifically, the Notice alleged that an out-of-
service inspection report for in-service Breakout Tank #901, at Lockport Terminal (Date:
5/17/17), included a statement regarding “illegal patches” under its shell section. The statement
said these illegal patches must be addressed when the tank bottom is replaced. However,
ExxonMobil did not provide any documentation that the illegal patch deficiency was reviewed or
addressed by the Tank Maintenance Specialist (TMS) in accordance with its Tank Inspection
Program Procedure.
In its Response, ExxonMobil stated it had erroneously included the page listing the illegal
patches in the report, and that it was not related to Breakout Tank #901. Respondent provided an
updated API Std 653 report page.3 ExxonMobil further stated that the TMS verified the API Std
653 report and associated repair plan for Tank #901. Lastly, ExxonMobil asserted it believes it
completed the inspection in accordance with its operating procedures.
Having reviewed the updated report page and Respondent’s explanation of actions, I find
ExxonMobil did not provide any documentation demonstrating that the TMS reviewed the API
Std 653 report or associated repair plan for Breakout Tank #901. Rather, it only provided the
updated report page and unsupported statements in its Response that it “believes that the
inspection was completed as per [ExxonMobil’s] procedures.”
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.432(b) by failing to inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric breakout tanks
in accordance with API Std 653 and its written operating procedures.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b), which states:
§ 195.505 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.
The program shall include provisions to:
(a)….
(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks
are qualified;
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b) by failing to ensure through
evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks were qualified. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that Respondent failed to ensure that its inspector performing in-service external tank
inspections was qualified for a period during calendar years 2017 to 2018.
In its Response, ExxonMobil did not contest the qualification gap cited by PHMSA. Instead, it
contested the proposed civil penalty for Item 4 and requested a reduction.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.505(b) by failing to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks
were qualified. ExxonMobil’s argument regarding the proposed civil penalty for this violation is
3 Respondent’s Response to the Notice (Response), Exhibit A.



CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV
Page 4
addressed in the Assessment of Penalty section below.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(g), which states:
§ 195.505 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.
The program shall include provisions to:
(a)….
(g) Identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which evaluation of
the individual’s qualifications is needed;
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(g) by failing to have and
follow a written qualification program that included provisions to identify covered tasks and the
intervals at which evaluation of an individual's qualification is needed. Specifically, the Notice
alleged Respondent failed to follow its written Operator Qualification procedures for
requalifying its employees for eight applicable covered tasks within the frequencies identified in
Section 4.3- Requalification/Subsequent Qualification of its written Operator Qualification
Program.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, after considering all of the
evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(g) by failing to follow its written
Operator Qualification procedures for requalifying its employees for eight applicable covered
tasks within the frequencies identified in its Operator Qualification Program.
Item 10: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e), which states:
§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(a)….
(e) Corrective action. You must correct any identified deficiency in
corrosion control as required by § 195.401(b). However, if the deficiency
involves a pipeline in an integrity management program under § 195.452,
you must correct the deficiency as required by § 195.452(h).
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e) by failing to correct any
identified deficiencies in corrosion control as required by § 195.401(b). Specifically, the Notice
alleged that ExxonMobil’s atmospheric corrosion inspections included deficiencies such as
disbonded paint and coatings, active corrosion, and direct contact between pipe supports and
pipe. The Notice also alleged that ExxonMobil’s annual surveys included deficiencies such as
missing or damaged test stations found over consecutive years and inadequate survey readings.
In its Response, ExxonMobil did not contest the deficiencies. Instead, Respondent stated it
conducted refresher training for applicable personnel on the procedures to document and retain
records of corrective actions taken for corrosion control deficiencies. It provided documentation
of this training.4
4 Response, Exhibit C.



CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV
Page 5
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.573(e) by failing to take action to correct any identified deficiencies in corrosion control as
required by § 195.401(b).
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.5
In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I
must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,
including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history
of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue
doing business; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to discovery by PHMSA.
In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction
because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice
proposed a total civil penalty of $146,300 for the violations cited above.
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $114,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49
C.F.R. § 195.420(b), for failing to inspect each mainline valve to determine that it is functioning
properly at intervals not exceeding 7½ months but at least twice each calendar year.
With regard to the history of Respondent’s prior offenses, in its Response, ExxonMobil asserted
that PHMSA incorrectly found it had five prior offenses in the five years preceding the date of
the Notice.6 Respondent stated that four of the five prior offenses (Four Prior Offenses) listed in
the Violation Report relate to a Final Order issued by PHMSA on October 1, 2015 (2015 Final
Order). Respondent petitioned for reconsideration and PHMSA subsequently affirmed the 2015
Final Order by a Decision on Petition for Reconsideration issued on April 1, 2016. In that case,
ExxonMobil then petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review. By a
decision issued August 14, 2017, the Court affirmed four of the nine violations and remanded the
matter for PHMSA to re-evaluate the civil penalty associated with one of those items. PHMSA
thereafter issued an Order on Remand on August 7, 2018, reducing the civil penalty for that item.
Respondent argued that the Violation Report incorrectly associated the Four Prior Offenses with
the August 7, 2018, date of the Order on Remand in its history of prior offenses when it should
have been connected to the date of the 2015 Final Order. Respondent argued further that even if
the Four Prior Offences were attributed to the date of the Decision on Petition for
5 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.
6 See Violation Report, at 2-3.



CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV
Page 6
Reconsideration on April 1, 2016, more than five years had passed prior to the issuance of the
Notice. Therefore, ExxonMobil argued, the Four Prior Offenses should not have been
considered in the calculation for the proposed civil penalty.
Pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Director submitted a written evaluation of the response material
submitted by Respondent and recommended reducing the civil penalty. I agree. The Four Prior
Offenses were incorrectly dated for purposes of considering Respondent’s prior offenses and
should instead be dated based on the April 1, 2016, Decision on Petition for Reconsideration.
Further, because the Decision on Petition for Reconsideration was issued on April 1, 2016,
which is more than five years prior to the issuance of the Notice in this case, the Four Prior
Offenses should be excluded from the penalty calculation for Item 2.7
Considering the above, I agree that the Violation Report incorrectly found a history of five prior
offenses in the five years preceding the date of the Notice when the Respondent only has one
prior offense during this period. Based upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a reduced civil
penalty of $109,400 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b).
Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $31,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.505(b), for failing to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks
were qualified. ExxonMobil did not contest this allegation of violation but similarly argued that
the history of prior offenses should be corrected because four of the five prior offenses listed
occurred outside of the five-year period prior to the date the Notice was issued. Once again,
having reviewed the information, I agree. Accordingly, I find that the record supports a
reduction in the number of prior offenses from five findings of violation to one.
Based upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $23,100 for violation
of 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b).
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $132,500.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49
C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.
The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
Failure to pay the $132,500 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual
rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
7 For purposes of considering an operator’s history of prior offenses, PHMSA uses a cutoff of five years prior to the
date of the Notice, as stated in Part C of the Violation Report.



CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV
Page 7
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 3, 5, and 10 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.432(b), 195.505(g), and 195.573, respectively. Under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or
operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established
under chapter 601. The Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions
to address some of the cited violations:
With regard to the violation of § 195.505(g) (Item 5), the Director indicated that ExxonMobil
supplemented its Operator Qualification Program procedures and that the updated procedures
adequately address the extended qualification frequencies built into its learning management
system.
Regarding the violation of § 195.573(e) (Item 10), the Director indicated that ExxonMobil
conducted refresher training for applicable personnel on the procedures to document and retain
records for corrective actions taken for corrosion control deficiencies.8
Accordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations.
Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Items 5 and 10 are not included in
this Order.
With regard to the violation of § 195.432(b) (Item 3), the Notice proposed that ExxonMobil
review all potential deficiencies identified by API Std. 653 out-of-service inspections for the
Lockport Terminal Tank #901 (Date: 5/17/17), and provide documentation of the review and any
remediation records that address the illegal patches mentioned in the inspection report within 60
days of receipt of the Final Order.
As noted above, in its Response, ExxonMobil argued that it erroneously included the statement
in the inspection report regarding the illegal patches under the shell section of in-service
Breakout Tank #901. It stated the page in question was from another tank project and not related
to Breakout Tank #901. Respondent provided an updated API Std 653 report page.9 However,
ExxonMobil did not provide any documentation demonstrating that the TMS reviewed the API
Std 653 report or associated repair plan for Breakout Tank #901. Rather, it only provided the
updated report page and stated it “believes that the inspection was completed as per
[ExxonMobil’s] procedures.” Considering the foregoing, I find that the terms of the Proposed
Compliance Order for Item 3 have not been achieved.
Therefore, the Compliance Order terms for Item 3 are included as set forth below.
8 Response, Exhibit C.
9 Response, Exhibit A.



CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV
Page 8
Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is
ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations
applicable to its operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 195.432(b) (Item 3), Respondent must review all
potential deficiencies identified by API Std 653 out-of-service inspections for the
Lockport Terminal Tank #901 (Date: 5/17/17), and provide documentation of the
review and any remediation records that address the illegal patches mentioned in the
inspection report within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
PHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs
associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is
requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with
preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with
replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (see 49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for
each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a
district court of the United States.
WARNING ITEMS
With respect to Items 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195, but
identified them as warning items pursuant to § 190.205. The warnings were for:
49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect the
surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline right-of-way, at intervals not
exceeding three weeks, but at least 26 times each calendar year, by walking,
driving, flying, or other appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way;
49 C.F.R. § 195.555 (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to require and verify
that supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of that portion of the corrosion
control procedures which they are responsible for ensuring compliance;
49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to conduct
tests on protected pipelines at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not
exceeding 15 months, for the Mokena/Joliet Pipeline from the years 2018 through
2019;



CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV
Page 9
49 C.F.R. § 195.573(c) (Item 8) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to electrically
check for proper performance of interference bonds whose failure would
jeopardize structural protection at the frequency of at least six times each calendar
year, but with intervals not exceeding 2½ months; and
49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d) (Item 9) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect each
cathodic protection system used to control corrosion on aboveground breakout
tanks to ensure operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with
API RP 651.
ExxonMobil presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to
address the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection,
Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final
Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of
Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this
Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and
meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays
the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective
action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
December 28, 2021
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

42021029NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_05102022_(20-172335)_text.pdf

May 10, 2022
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: steven.a.yatauro@exxonmobil.com
Mr. Steven A. Yatauro
President & Chief Executive Officer
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company
22777 Springwoods Village Parkway
Spring, Texas 77389
Re: CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV
Dear Mr. Yatauro:
Enclosed is the Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration issued in the above-referenced case.
For the reasons explained therein, the Decision grants your Petition. This is to acknowledge
receipt of payment of the full civil penalty amount of $132,500 by wire transfer dated January
18, 2022. This case is now closed. This Decision constitutes the final administrative action in
this proceeding. Service of this decision by electronic mail is effective upon the date of
transmission and acknowledgement of receipt as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Ms. Caroline Henderson, Safety, Security, Health and Environmental Manager,
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, caroline.b.henderson@exxonmobil.com
Mr. William V. Murchison, Counsel for ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, Murchison Law
Firm, vince.murchison@pipelinelegal.com
CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV
)
)
)
Petitioner. )
____________________________________)
DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Between June 15, 2020, and October 30, 2020, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), conducted on-site pipeline safety inspections of the facilities and records of ExxonMobil
Pipeline Company (ExxonMobil or Petitioner) in and around Lockport and Patoka, Illinois.
1
ExxonMobil, an affiliate of Exxon Mobil Corporation, transports crude oil, refined products,
liquified petroleum gases, natural gases, and chemical feedstocks through more than 4,000 miles
of pipeline and facilities in California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
Montana, Rhode Island, and Texas.2
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Petitioner, by letter dated June 3, 2021, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty,
and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice).3 In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice
proposed finding that ExxonMobil committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 (Items 2, 3,
4, 5 and 10), proposed assessing a civil penalty of $146,300 for two of the alleged violations
(Items 2 and 4), and proposed ordering Petitioner to take certain measures to correct several of
the alleged violations (Items 3, 5 and 10).
4 The Notice also included an additional five warning
items pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205 (Items 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9), which warned the operator to
correct the probable violations or face possible future enforcement action.5
1 The PHMSA representatives inspected ExxonMobil’s facilities operating under Mobil Pipeline Company,
Mustang Pipeline, LLC, and the ExxonMobil Pipeline Company. See Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation
Report), (June 3, 2021), at 1 (on file with PHMSA).
2 ExxonMobil Pipeline Company: Know More, https://www.exxonmobilpipeline.com/en/know-more (last accessed
Apr. 29, 2022).
3 ExxonMobil Pipeline, Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order,
CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV (Notice) (June 3, 2021) (on file with PHMSA).
4 Id., at 8-9.
5 Id., at 8.



CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV
Page 2
After requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, ExxonMobil responded to the
Notice by letter dated August 16, 2021 (Response).6 ExxonMobil contested the alleged violation
of 49 C.F.R § 195.432(b) (Item 3), offered additional information in response to the Notice, and
requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced.7 Petitioner did not request a hearing and
therefore waived its right to one.
On December 28, 2021, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 60117 and 60122, and 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, the
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety issued a Final Order finding that Petitioner
committed the violations as alleged in the Notice (Final Order).8 The Final Order assessed a
reduced civil penalty of $132,500, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R.
§190.221, and ordered Petitioner to take certain measures to correct certain violations, pursuant
to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217.
9 The Final Order also included
the additional five warning items pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, warning ExxonMobil to
correct the probable violations or face possible future enforcement action.10
On January 18, 2022, Petitioner filed a Petition for Reconsideration pursuant to 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.243 (Petition).11 In its Petition, ExxonMobil requested reconsideration of Item 3 of the
Final Order, which found a violation of 49 C.F.R § 195.432(b).
12 It did not request
reconsideration of the other Items within the Final Order. On the same date, Petitioner paid the
assessed civil penalty amount of $132,500 for Items 2 and 4.
Standard of Review
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, a respondent may petition the Associate Administrator for
reconsideration of a Final Order that has been issued pursuant to § 190.213. Reconsideration is
not an appeal or a completely new review of the record.13 A respondent may ask for correction
of an error or, in limited circumstances, may present previously unavailable information. If a
respondent requests consideration of additional facts or arguments, the respondent must submit
the reasons they were not presented prior to the issuance of the Final Order. The Associate
6 ExxonMobil Pipeline Company Written Response CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV, dated August 16, 2021
(Response) (on file with PHMSA).
7 Id.
8 ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, Final Order, CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV (Final Order) (December 28, 2021) (on
file with PHMSA).
9 Id., at 5-8.
10 Id., at 8-9.
11 Petition for Reconsideration of ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, dated January 18, 2022 (Petition) (on file with
PHMSA).
12 Id.
13 49 C.F.R. § 190.243(a)-(d).



CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV
Page 3
Administrator may grant or deny, in whole or in part, a petition for reconsideration without
further proceedings.
Analysis
The Final Order found that Petitioner violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), which states:
§ 195.432(b) Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.
(a) ….
(b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service
atmospheric and low-pressure steel above-ground breakout tanks according
to API Std 653 (exception section 6.4.3, Alternative Internal Inspection
Interval) (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). However, if structural
conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, its integrity may be assessed
according to a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual
under § 195.402(c)(3). The risk-based internal inspection procedures in
API Std 653, section 6.4.3 cannot be used to determine the internal
inspection interval.
During the on-site pipeline safety inspection, PHMSA representatives reviewed an API Standard
653 report page stating there were “illegal patches” under the shell section of Breakout Tank
#901.14 The report page said these illegal patches must be addressed when the tank bottom is
replaced.15 However, ExxonMobil did not provide any documentation during the PHMSA
inspection that the illegal patch deficiency was reviewed or addressed by the Tank Maintenance
Specialist (TMS) in accordance with its Tank Inspection Program Procedure.16
After receiving the Notice, ExxonMobil responded that the report page listing the illegal patches
had erroneously been included, and that it was from another tank project (not involving a
breakout tank) at a different facility in another geographic area and was not related to Breakout
Tank #901.17 Petitioner provided an updated API Standard 653 report page, which did not
mention any illegal patches; however, Petitioner did not provide the complete out-of-service tank
inspection report. Petitioner also stated it “believes that the inspection was completed as per
[ExxonMobil’s] procedures.”18
The Final Order determined Petitioner’s response was insufficient to withdraw the proposed
violation because it did not provide any documentation demonstrating that the TMS reviewed the
API Standard 653 report or associated repair plan for Breakout Tank #901.19 ExxonMobil only
14 Final Order, supra, at 3.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Response, supra, at 4.
18 Final Order, supra, at 3; Response, supra, at 4.
19 Final Order, supra, at 3.



CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV
Page 4
provided its unsubstantiated statement that it “believed” an API Standard 653 inspection had
occurred.20 Consequently, Item 3 of the Final Order found that Petitioner violated § 195.432(b)
by failing to inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric Breakout Tank #901 in
accordance with API Standard 653 and its written operating procedure.
21 The Final Order
included a Compliance Order that required ExxonMobil to review all potential deficiencies
identified by API Standard 653 out-of-service inspections for Breakout Tank #901 in Lockport,
Illinois, and provide documentation of the review and any remediation records that address the
illegal patches mentioned in the inspection report.22
In its Petition, ExxonMobil again asserted that it had not violated § 195.432(b) because it had
performed an API Standard 653 inspection for Breakout Tank #901.23 In support of its assertion,
Petitioner provided the complete API Standard 653 inspection report for Breakout Tank #901,
performed by U.N.I. Engineering, Inc.,24 and two declarations addressing the tank.25 The
declaration from Petitioner’s Fixed Equipment Engineer states he reviewed the API Standard 653
report for Breakout Tank #901 and concluded there are no patches on the shell of the tank.26 The
declaration from a U.N.I. Engineer states the inspection report included in ExxonMobil’s
submission is the correct report for Breakout Tank #901.27 Petitioner had not provided these
records prior to issuance of the Final Order and asserted that it was not aware such additional
information was needed by PHMSA prior to the Final Order.
28
Based upon these newly submitted records, I find that Petitioner has satisfactorily demonstrated
the evidence relied upon by the Final Order was erroneously identified as a record for Breakout
Tank #901. The erroneous record contained information about a fuel oil tank that was unrelated
to Breakout Tank #901, which services gasoline. The correct records for Breakout Tank #901,
which Petitioner has provided in full, demonstrate the tank did not have “illegal patches” or other
issues that impacted its suitability for service.
Accordingly, the record evidence is insufficient to show that ExxonMobil violated § 195.432(b)
with regard to Breakout Tank #901. In making this determination, I evaluated all of the evidence
20 Id.
21 Id., at 2-3.
22 Id., at 8.
23 Petition, supra, at 2.
24 Id., at 16-140.
25 Id., at 14-15, 142-143.
26 Id., at 142-143.
27 Id., at 14-15.
28 Id., at 2.



CPF No. 4-2021-029-NOPV
Page 5
of record, including the evidence and statements provided in ExxonMobil’s Response and
Petition.
CONCLUSION
After reviewing all of the evidence of record, I find it appropriate to withdraw Item 3 of the Final
Order and its associated Compliance Order terms. As ExxonMobil did not petition for
reconsideration of any other Items, the rest of the Final Order remains unchanged. Petitioner
has paid in full the assessed civil penalty amount of $132,500 for Items 2 and 4 by wire transfer
dated January 18, 2022. Petitioner has also completed the compliance terms for Items 5 and 10
as recognized by the Final Order.
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 40272