{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520025023","title":"CHEVRON PIPE LINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2002-06-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.401(b), 195.402, 195.416(a), 195.416(b), 195.416(i), 195.432(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520025023.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520025023.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520025023","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520025023","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving CHEVRON PIPE LINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.401(b),  195.402,  195.416(a),  195.416(b),  195.416(i),  195.432(b). The case was opened on 2002-06-26 and is reported as closed as of 2008-07-11. Proposed civil penalty: $76,000. Assessed civil penalty: $66,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520025023_FinalOrder_03122008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520025023/520025023_FinalOrder_03122008.pdf\n\n520025023_finalorder_03122008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520025023/520025023_finalorder_03122008_text.pdf\n\n520025023_finalorder_03122008_text.pdf\n\nO\nU S Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nMAR 1 2 RII\n1200 New Jersey Ave S E\nWashington DC 20590\nMr. James Barnum\nVice President of Pipeline Services and Standards\nChevron Pipe Line Company\nRM C382A\n4800 Fournace Place\nBellaire, TX 77401-2324\nRe: CPF No. 5-2002-5023\nDear Mr, Barninn:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued to the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation\nand assesses a civil penalty of $66, 000. The Final Order also finds that you have completed the\nactions specified in the Notice that were required to bring Chevron into compliance with the\npipeline safety regulations, and that you have addressed the inadequacies in your procedures\nthat were cited in the Notice of Amendment. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the\nFinal Order.\nWhen the civil penalty has been paid, this enforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of\nthe Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D, Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Chris Hoidal, PE, Director, Western Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\n\n\n\nU. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\nChevron Pipeline Company,\nRespondent\nCPF No. 5-2002-5023\nFINAL ORDER\nOn August 6-7 and August 20-24, 2001, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. $ 60117, a representative of the\nResearch and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), ' Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS)\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Chevron Pipeline Co. 's (Respondent or\nChevron), facilities and records in Salt Lake City, Utah and Rangely, Colorado. As a result of\nthe inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated June 26,\n2002, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, Proposed Compliance Order, and\nNotice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 207, the Notice alleged that\nRespondent had violated 49 C. F. R. $$ 195. 416 and 195. 432, proposed assessing a civil penalty\nof $76, 000 for such violations, and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to\ncorrect the violations. The Notice also proposed, in accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 190, 237, that\nRespondent amend its procedures for Operations, Maintenance and Emergencies. In addition,\nthe Notice contained a warning that Respondent had committed certain other probable violations\nof 49 C. F. R. $ 195, 416 and advised Respondent to take appropriate corrective action.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated July 23, 2002. Respondent contested the\nallegations and requested a hearing. In a letter dated November 25, 2002, Respondent withdrew its\nrequest for a hearing and informed PHMSA that in lieu of the hearing, Respondent would like to\nsubmit documentation to demonstrate that its procedures adequately addressed each of the pipeline\nsafety regulations cited in the Notice. On December 11, 2002, Respondent submitted its amended\nresponse (collectively, Response), which provided documentation responding to issues raised in the\nNotice and requested a reduction in the proposed civil penalty from $76, 000 to $10, 000.\n' The Norman Y Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 108-426, 118 Stat 2423\n(2004), created the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Admmistration (PHMSA) and transferred the authonty\nRSPA exercised under chapter 601 of title 49, Umted States Code, to the Admmistrator of PHMSA. See also 70\nFed Reg 8299, 8301-8302 (2005)\n\n\n\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 3a in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195, 416(a), which states:\n49 C. F. R. g 195. 416 — External Corrosion Control\n(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least\nonce each calendar year, conduct tests on each buried, in contact with\nthe ground, or submerged pipeline facility in its pipeline system that\nis under cathodic protection to determine whether the protection is\nadequate.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to take pipe-to-soil (P/S) or casing-to-soil (C/S)\ncathodic protection (CP) readings on Line ¹2 at MP 163+, Kilby Road Crossing, in 2000, 1999,\nand 1998.\nIn its Response, Respondent did not contest the allegation of violation or the proposed civil\npenalty for this violation. Respondent acknowledged that it had failed to repair shorted casings\nand install test leads that would have enabled it to test the C/S readings in the Mile Post (MP)\n163 area. Respondent failed to test the P/S or C/S readings for Line ¹2 at MP 163+, Kilby Road\nCrossing, in calendar years 2000, 1999, and 1998. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C. F. R. ) 195, 416(a) by failing to conduct tests at least once each calendar year on each\nburied, in contact with the ground, or submerged pipeline facility to determine that cathodic\nprotection is adequate.\nItem 3b in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 416(a), as quoted above,\nby failing to take P/S or C/S CP readings on Line ¹1 at MP 163+, Kilby Road Crossing, in 2000,\n1999, and 1998.\nIn its Response, Respondent did not contest the allegation of violation or the proposed civil\npenalty for this violation. Respondent acknowledged that it had failed to repair shorted casings\nand install test leads that would have enabled it to test the C/S readings in the MP 163 area.\nRespondent failed to test the P/S or C/S readings for Line ¹I at MP 163+, Kilby Road Crossing,\nin calendar years 2000, 1999, and 1998. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R.\n$ 195. 416(a) by failing to conduct tests at least once each calendar year on each buried, in\ncontact with the ground, or submerged pipeline facility to determine that cathodic protection is\nadequate.\nItem 3c in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 416(a), as quoted above,\nby failing to take P/S or C/S CP readings on Line ¹1 at CP test station at MP 163. 00, Kilby Road\nCrossing, in calendar year 2000.\n' These requirements have since been amended and re-codified tn 49 C F R. $$ 195. 571 and 195 573\n\n\n\nIn its Response, Respondent did not contest the allegation of violation or the proposed civil\npenalty for this violation. Respondent acknowledged that it had failed to repair shorted casings\nand install test leads that would allow it to test the C/S readings in the MP 163 area. Respondent\nfailed to test the P/S or C/S readings for Line ¹1 at CP test station at MP 163. 000, Kilby Road\nCrossing, for the calendar year 2000 annual CP survey. Accordingly, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C. F, R. $ 195. 416(a) by failing to conduct tests at least once each calendar year on\neach buried, in contact with the ground, or submerged pipeline facility to determine that cathodic\nprotection is adequate.\nItem 3d in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 416(a), as quoted above,\nby failing to take P/S or C/S CP readings on Line ¹1 at CP test station at MP 163, 00, Kilby Road\nCrossing, in 1999 and 1998.\nIn its Response, Respondent did not contest the allegation of violation or the proposed civil\npenalty for this violation. Respondent acknowledged that it had failed to repair shorted casings\nand install test leads that would allow it to test the C/S readings in the MP 163 area. Respondent\nfailed to test the P/S or C/S readings for Line ¹1 CP test station at MP 163. 000, Kilby Road\nCrossing, for the calendar years 1998 and 1999 annual CP surveys. Accordingly, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 416(a) by failing to conduct tests at least once each\ncalendar year on each buried, in contact with the ground, or submerged pipeline facility to\ndetermine that cathodic protection is adequate.\nItem 3e in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 416(a), as quoted above,\nby failing to take a P/S CP reading at the Raven Ridge line CP test station at MP 174, 262, the\nF. L. pipeline crossing, in 2000.\nIn its Response, Respondent stated that it had attempted to collect data for this station in 2000\nbut that the data had not been correctly recorded. Respondent did not contest the allegation of\nviolation or the proposed civil penalty for this violation. Respondent failed to test the P/S\nreading at the CP test station at MP 174. 262, the F. L. pipeline crossing, for the calendar year\n2000 annual CP survey. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195, 416(a) by\nfailing to conduct tests at least once each calendar year on each buried, in contact with the\nground, or submerged pipeline facility to determine that cathodic protection is adequate.\nItem 6 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 432(b) and (d), which\nstates:\n49 C. F. R. g 195. 432 — Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n(a)\n(b) Each operator shall inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric\nand low-pressure steel above-ground breakout tanks according to section 4\nof API Standard 653. However, if structural conditions prevent access to\nthe tank bottom, the bottom integrity may be assessed according to a plan\nincluded in the operations and maintenance manual under $ 195. 402(c)(3) . .\n\n\n\n(d) The intervals of inspection specified by documents referenced in paragraphs\n(b) and (c) of this section begin on May 3, 1999, or on the operator's last\nrecorded date of the inspection, whichever is earlier.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to conduct monthly Routine In-Service Inspections for\nbreakout tanks in accordance with API 653, Section 4 (\" Suitability for Service\" ), The Notice\nalleged that Respondent missed 140 inspections for breakout tanks 132, 111, 510, 520, 101, 102,\n103, 104, 106, and 141 from May 1999 until approximately August 2000 (10 tanks x 14 months).\nAdditionally, the Notice alleged that Respondent missed a monthly breakout tank inspection on\ntank 111 and tank 520 in 2001 for a total of 142 alleged missed monthly breakout tank\ninspections.\nIn its Response, Respondent submitted records of six API Routine In-Service Inspections for\nbreakout tanks that had not been provided during the inspection. The Respondent also stated that\nTank 101 was not jurisdictional to DOT during the 14-month period of missed breakout tank\ninspections. Respondent provided a diagram of its facility showing that Tank 101 receives\nproduct from a non-DOT jurisdictional gathering line. Therefore, the 14 instances of missed\ninspections cited in the Notice related to tank 101 will be subtracted, as will the six missed\ninspections for which Respondent provided inspection records in its Response.\nFor the remaining 122 missed inspections, the Respondent conceded it had not performed the\nbreakout tank inspections as required by $ 195. 432. However, Respondent submitted records of\nmonthly volumetric integrity assessment (VMAC) inspections, Monthly High Level Alarm\nReports, station checks, station Daily Log sheets, and Monthly Station Checks for the tanks in\nquestion. However, I find that only the records of the six API Routine In-Service Inspections for\nbreakout tanks demonstrate compliance with $ 195. 432. The other VMAC, Monthly High Level\nAlarm Reports, station checks, station Daily Log sheets, and Monthly Station Checks simply do\nnot meet the requirements for monthly inspections set forth in API 653, Section 4.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 432(b) and (d) by failing to\nconduct 122 Routine In-Service Inspections for breakout tanks per API 653, section 4, as\nrequired by 49 C. F. R. ) 195. 432.\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, at the time of the inspection Respondent was subject to a civil penalty\nnot to exceed $25, 000 per violation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $500, 000\nfor any related series of violations. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $76, 000 for the\nviolations of 49 C, F. R. $$ 195. 416 and 195. 432.\n' The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, Pub. L. No 107-355, $ 8(b)(1), 116 Stat. 2992, increased the civil\npenalty hability for violating a pipelme safety standard to $100, 000 per violation for each day of the violation up to\na maximum of $1, 000, 000 for any related series of violations\n\n\n\n49 U. S. C. $ 60122 and 49 C. F, R. $ 190. 225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation;\ndegree of Respondent's culpability; history of Respondent's prior offenses; Respondent's ability\nto pay the penalty; good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance; the effect on\nRespondent's ability to continue in business; and such other matters as justice may require.\nItems 3a through 3c proposed a civil penalty of $5, 000 for the violations of 49 C. F. R. $\n195. 416(a). The Respondent failed to take P/S and C/S CP readings on Lines 41 and P2 at\nvarious points around MP 163 during 1998-2000 and at the Raven Ridge line CP test station at\nMP 174. 262, the F. L. pipeline crossing, in 2000. According to an employee of Respondent who\nwas interviewed during the inspection, the test station had been covered over by a road toe\nseveral years prior. Failure to maintain proper CP can lead to external corrosion on the pipeline,\nwhich can cause a pipeline failure. The above-listed points are located under Interstate 80 and a\nparallel Frontage Road. In addition, MP 163 is about five miles uphill from a drinking water\nreservoir. From these circumstances, it is clear that a rupture of Respondent's pipeline could pose\na significant threat to public heath and safety. In its Response, Respondent presented no\ninformation to mitigate the proposed civil penalty amount. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5, 000 for\nthe violations of 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 416(a) (Items 3a through 3e).\nItem 6 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $71, 000 for the multiple violations of 49 C. F. R.\n$ 195. 432(b) and (d). The Notice alleged that the Respondent failed to conduct routine in-\nservice inspections as required by API 653, Section 4, which is incorporated by reference into 49\nC. F. R. $ 195. 432, for 10 breakout tanks over a 14-month period from May 1999 to July 2000.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent missed two additional breakout tank inspections, in 2001,\nbringing the total number of alleged missed inspections to 142. As discussed above, Respondent\nsubmitted reports for six API Routine In-Service Inspections for breakout tanks that were not\nprovided to the inspector during the inspection. Respondent also stated that Tank 101 was not\njurisdictional to DOT at the time of the missed inspections. Therefore, the number of missed\nAPI 653 Routine In-Service Inspections is reduced from 142 to 122.\nIn monthly Routine In-Service Inspections for breakout tanks under API Standard 653, pipeline\noperators are to focus on a number of issues, including corrosion, leaks, shell distortions, pitting,\nsigns of settlement, foundation conditions, paint coatings, appurtenances, seals, welds, etc. 4\nRespondent conceded that it did not complete the 122 Routine In-service Inspections for\nbreakout tanks during the 14-month period from May 1999 through July 2000. However,\nChevron contended that its other tank monitoring activities met the basic safety concerns\naddressed in 49 C. F. R. ) 195. 432 and therefore that such alternative actions should mitigate the\nextent of the violation, Therefore, Respondent requested that OPS reduce the civil penalty from\n$71, 000 to $5, 000 for this Item.\nRespondent submitted the following evidence and information in support of its argument:\nSee API 653 Secnon 4 and Appendix C\n\n\n\n~ A Description of Chevron 's Daily Tank Monitoring Activities - This included a\ndescription of the operator's daily tank inspections, including how its personnel climbed\nthe breakout tanks daily to collect inventory data. During these inventory checks,\npipeline operators fill out daily log sheets that record meter readings, inventory\ninformation, and pump and flow information. There was no information, however,\nshowing that Respondent's daily monitoring activities involved any examination of tank\nshell integrity or the other criteria set forth in API 653.\n~ Monthly VMAC Tickets - Completion of a VMAC ticket involves verifying tank\ninventory close-outs, which requires shutting off mixers and climbing the tank on a\nmonthly basis. The Respondent described VMAC as a system that \"integrates and\nautomates most task processes associated with customer nominations, scheduling,\nmeasurement, volumetric management, and delivery of business information to Chevron\nemployees and customers for crude oil pipeline transportation. \" The completion of\nVMAC tickets appears to fulfill normal business operations. No information indicates it\nis specifically focused on tank shell integrity factors included in API 653 Section 4.\n~ Monthly Tank High Level Alarm Reports - These reports appear to verify that alarms to\nalert pipeline operators of high product levels in tanks are functional. These reports may\nbe related to safety in the sense that they prevent overflow, but there is no information\nindicating that the purpose or result of such reports is tank shell integrity monitoring or\nanalysis.\n~ Records of Monthly Station Checks Completed for Tank 141 - The records Respondent\nsubmitted do not convey what monitoring activities occurred during these checks.\nRespondent simply argues that during these checks, its personnel examine the facilities\nfor \"abnormal conditions, such as leaks and other potential problems. \" Unfortunately,\nthe regulations require documentation that the tank integrity inspection and analysis\nrequired under API Standard 653 have actually taken place. Such documentation was\nnever provided.\n~ Annual External Above-Ground Storage Tank Inspections - Respondent submitted\nrecords showing annual external above-ground storage tank inspections for the nine\nbreakout tanks over the 14-month period of non-compliance. Respondent's records\ndocument 14 instances of this type of inspection for breakout tanks cited in the Notice.\nThese records fulfill a separate and distinct API requirement and a separate and distinct\nregulation under PHMSA. ' Completion of one required inspection obviously does not\nfulfill the need to complete another inspection designed for an altogether different\npurpose,\nAlthough Respondent certainly could have found integrity problems during the above-listed\nactivities, the regulation requires specific analysis of, and attention to, tank shell condition and\nintegrity. If completing other routine tasks were sufficient, the API monthly Routine In-Service\n' See API 653 4 3 2 External Inspection, 49 U. S C $ 195 432(a).\n\n\n\nInspections would be unnecessary. Based on the information submitted by Respondent, I find\nthe violations resulting from Respondent's failure to conduct in-service inspections for breakout\ntanks could have had an adverse impact on pipeline safety. Although the Respondent submitted\nrecords that showed it was generally monitoring the tanks, the records have little relevance to the\nrequirements of API Standard 653, Section 4, as incorporated into 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 432.\nTherefore, I am reducing the civil penalty on that violation from $71, 000 to $61, 000 in\nconsideration of the 6 completed API Standard 653 Routine In-Service Inspections and because\nTank 101 was not jurisdictional to DOT during the 14-month period. This reduction is\nproportional to PHMSA's finding that Respondent is actually liable for 122 of the 142 alleged\nmissed monthly inspections.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a total civil penalty of $66, 000.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C. F. R. $ 89. 21(b)(3)) require this payment 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 (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P. O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $66, 000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin 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\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United\nStates District Court.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 4a in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C, F. R. $$ 195. 401 and 195. 416. Under 49 U. S. C. $ 60118(a), each person who\nengages in the transportation of hazardous liquid or who owns or operates a hazardous liquid\npipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under\nchapter 601. The Director, Western Region, OPS has indicated that Respondent has taken the\nfollowing actions specified in the proposed compliance order:\nItem 1:\n49 C. F. R. $195. 401 General Requirements\n(b) Whenever an operator discovers any condition that could adversely affect the safe\noperation of its pipeline system, it shall correct it within a reasonable time.\nHowever, if the condition is of such a nature that it that it presents an immediate\nhazard to persons or property, the operator may not operate the affected part of the\nsystem until it has corrected the unsafe condition.\n\n\n\nRespondent's records showed that readings at two CP stations did not meet the minimum criteria\nin years 1999 and 2000. The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to take remedial action to\ncorrect the problem.\nChevron has submitted evidence that adequate CP has been restored for the test stations\nat MP 49. 00 and MP 56. 90.\nItem 4a:\n49 C. F. R. g 195. 416 External Corrosion Control\n(b) Each Operator shall maintain the test leads required for cathodic protection in such a\ncondition that electrical measurements can be obtained to ensure adequate protection,\nThe Notice alleged there were no casing or pipe CP test stations in place at the time of the\ninspection for Line ¹2 at MP 163+, Kilby Road (frontage road).\nAt a cost of $1. 2 million, Chevron replaced all the cased crossings at MP 163 with new\npipe (no casings) and CP test stations.\nAccordingly, since compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations, the\ncompliance terms are not included in this Order.\nAMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES\nThe Notice alleged inadequacies in Respondent's Operations, Maintenance and Emergencies\nManual and proposed that Respondent amend its procedures to comply with the requirements of\n49 C. F. R. $ 195. 402.\nIn its Response Respondent submitted copies of its amended procedures, which the Director,\nWestern Region, OPS has reviewed. Accordingly, based on the results of this review, I find that\nRespondent's original procedures as described in the Notice were inadequate to ensure safe\noperation of its pipeline system but that Respondent has corrected the identified inadequacies.\nTherefore, no need exists to issue an order directing amendment.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 4b, 4c, Sa, Sb, and Sc, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195\nbut did not propose a civil penalty or a compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are\nconsidered to be warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C. F. R. g 195. 416(b) (Notice Item 4b) — Respondent's failure to maintain test\nleads required for CP in such a condition that electrical measurements could be\ntaken for Line ¹1 at MP 163+, Kilby Road Crossing;\n\n\n\n49 C. F. R. f 195. 416(b) (Notice Item 4c) — Respondent's failure to maintain test leads\nrequired for CP in such a condition that electrical measurements could be taken\nfor Line ¹I at MP 163. 000, Kilby Road Crossing;\n49 C. F. R. g 195. 416(i) (Notice Item 5a) — Respondent's failure to maintain\ncoating to prevent corrosion at aboveground in-station piping and the mainline on\nthe upstream side of the pig launcher at Rangely Pump Station;\n49 C. F. R. g 195. 416(i) (Notice Item 5b) — Respondent's failure to maintain\ncoating to prevent corrosion of the relief line to breakout tank T131 at the Myton\nPump Station; and\n49 C. F. R. g 195. 416(i) (Notice Item 5c) — Respondent's failure to maintain\ncoating to prevent corrosion on the inlet/outlet fittings, transfer lines, and on the\nfirst tier of the tank wall for breakout tanks T510 and T520 at the Hanna Pump\nStation.\nRespondent presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited items. Having considered such information, I find, pursuant to 49 C. F. R. )\n190. 205, that probable violations of 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 416(b) (Notice Items 4b and 4c) and 49\nC. F. R. $ 195. 416 (Notice Items 5a — 5c) have occurred and Respondent is hereby advised to\ncorrect such conditions if not already addressed. In the event that OPS finds a violation for any\nof these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future\nenforcement action.\nUnder 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this\nFinal Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However, if Respondent submits\npayment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the\nright to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are\neffective on receipt.\nJe ey D, Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nDate Issued","truncated":false,"body_characters":27203}