{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520045017","title":"CHEVRON PRODUCTS COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2004-04-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(b)(3), 195.452(c)(1)(i), 195.452(e), 195.452(f)(1), 195.452(f)(4), 195.452(f)(7), 195.452(i)(1), 195.452(j)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520045017.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520045017.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520045017","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520045017","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving CHEVRON PRODUCTS COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192,  195.452(b)(3),  195.452(c)(1)(i),  195.452(e),  195.452(f)(1),  195.452(f)(4),  195.452(f)(7),  195.452(i)(1),  195.452(j)(1). The case was opened on 2004-04-28 and is reported as closed as of 2007-11-07. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520045017_Final Order_11072007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520045017/520045017_Final%20Order_11072007.pdf\n\n520045017_final order_11072007_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520045017/520045017_final%20order_11072007_text.pdf\n\n520045017_final order_11072007_text.pdf\n\nU S Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Ave S E\nWashtngton DC 20590\nNQV 7 2007\nMartha A. Gilles\nRefinery Manager\nChevron Products Company\nHawaii Refinery\n91-480 Malakole Street\nKapolei, HI 96707\nRe: CPF No. 5-2004-5017\nDear Mrs. Gilles:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the\nabove-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and finds that you have completed the\nactions specified in the Notice required to comply with the pipeline safety regulations The Final\nOrder also finds that you have addressed the inadequacies in your procedures that were cited in\nthe Notice of Amendment. This case is now closed. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes\nservice under 49 C. F. R. ) 190. 5.\nSincerely,\nJames Reynolds\nPipelme Compliance Registry\nPHMSA-Office of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\nCERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\nChevron Products Company, )\nRespondent\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\nCPF No. 5-2004-5017\nFINAL ORDER\nOn March 15 and 16, 2004, pursuant to 49 U S. C. ( 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA's)' Office of Pipeline Safety conducted\nan Integrity Management Program (IMP) inspection at Respondent's offices in Kapolei, Hawaii.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, PHMSA, issued to Respondent, by\nletter dated April 28, 2004, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Compliance Order, and\nNotice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 190, 207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Respondent committed certain violations of 49 C. F. R. ( 195. 452 and ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. In accordance with 49\nC. F. R. $190. 237, the Notice proposed finding that certain other provisions of Respondent's IMP\nplans and procedures were inadequate and ordering that they be amended. Lastly, the Notice\nalso warned Respondent to take appropriate corrective action to address other probable violations\nin its IMP in order to avoid future enforcement action.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated May 28, 2004 (Response). Respondent did\nnot contest the allegations of violation, but provided information concerning the corrective\nactions it had taken and submitted copies of its revised procedures. Respondent did not request a\nhearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem 2(a). The Notice alleged that Respondent's IMP violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 452(b)(3), which\nstates:\n' Effective February 20, 2005, the Pipelme and Hazardous Materials Safety Admmistration (PHMSA) succeeded\nResearch and Special Programs Admmistration as the agency responsible for regulatmg safety m pipeline\ntransportation and hazardous materials transportation See, section 108 of the Norman Y Mineta Research and\nSpecial Programs Improvement Act (Pubhc Law 108-426, 118 Stat 2423-2429 (November 30, 2004)) See also, 70\nFed. Reg 8299 (February 18, 2005) redelegatmg the pipeline safety authorities and functions to the PHMSA\nAdministrator\n\n\n\n49 C. F. R. g 195. 452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence\nareas.\n(a) \"\"\n(b) H%at program and practices must operators use to manage pipeline\nintegrity? Each operator of a pipeline covered by this section must:. . .\n(3) Include in the program a plan to carry out baseline assessments of\nline pipe as required by paragraph (c) of this section.\nThe Notice alleged that the methods chosen by Chevron to evaluate the pipe's low frequency\nelectric resistance welded (LFERW) pipe were inadequate. Respondent did not contest this\nallegation. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C. F, R. $ 195. 452(b)(3) by having\ninadequate methods to evaluate the pipe's LFERW seam.\nItem 3. The Notice alleged that Respondent's IMP violated 49 C. F. R. |F195. 452(c)(1)(i), which\nstates:\n49 C. F. R. g 195. 452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence\nareas.\n(a)\"\"\n(c) 8%at must be in the baseline assessment plan?\n(1) An operator must include each of the following elements in its written\nbaseline assessment plan:\n(i) The methods selected to assess the integrity of the line pipe. An\noperator must assess the integrity of the line pipe by any of the following\nmethods. The methods an operator selects to assess low frequency electric\nresistance welded pipe or lap welded pipe susceptible to longitudinal seam\nfailure must be capable of assessing seam integrity and of detecting\ncorrosion and deformation anomalies.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent utilized an Ultrasonic in-line inspection (ILI) tool to\nevaluate the line pipe for corrosion and dents but did not investigate all of the dent indications on\nthe ILI reported data. Respondent did not contest this allegation. Accordingly, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C. F. R. $195. 452(c)(1)(i) by failing to investigate all of the dents\nindicated on the report provided by its Ultrasonic ILI tool.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Items 2(a) and 3 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 452(b)(3) and 49 C. F. R. ) 195. 452(c)(1)(i). Under 49 U. S. C.\n\n\n\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, Western Region, PHMSA, has indicated that Respondent has\ntaken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance order:\nWith regard to Item 2(a), the Response indicated that Respondent had identified all segments of\nits pipeline system that contain LFERW pipe. It identified longitudinal seam corrosion as a\npotential threat to pipeline safety on certain lines and then installed new coalescers within the\nrefinery, instituted a corrosion coupon program, and began a comprehensive engineering\nanalysis, including the use of a transverse MFL tool (TranScan) specifically designed to assess\nlongitudinal seam corrosion. Additionally, Respondent noted that it used the Long Seam\nSusceptibility Criteria Flowchart and procedural guidelines set forth in OPSA TTO5 — LFERW\nand Lap Welded Longitudinal Seam Evaluation, October 2003, and planned to schedule\nhydrostatic tests on selected cut-out sections. Per PHMSA Western Region review, Respondent\nperformed an engineering analysis and did not find any pipe susceptible to failure; therefore, no\nhydrostatic testing was required.\nWith regard to Item 3, the Response indicated that Respondent had contracted with a company to\nperform geometry tool inspections to investigate further the anomalies detected on the line and\nhad scheduled the inspections to begin in July of 2004. According to PHMSA Western Region\nreview, Respondent has performed the necessary investigation and excavated all dents meeting\nthe repair criteria in the rule. Accordingly, since compliance has been achieved with respect to\nthese violations, the compliance terms are not included in this Order.\nAMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES\nWith respect to Items la, lb, 2b, 4, 6a, 6b, 6c, 7, 8a, and 8b, the Notice alleged certain\ninadequacies in Respondent's IMP plans/procedures and proposed to require Respondent to\namend them in order to comply with the requirements of 49 C, F, R. $ 195, 452.\nIn its Response, Respondent submitted copies of its amended procedures, which the Director,\nWestern Region, PHMSA, has reviewed. Based upon 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 2(c) and 5, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to\nbe warning items. The warnings were for:\nItem 2(c). 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 452(b)(3) — Respondent's failure to have adequate\nbaseline assessments; and\n\n\n\nItem 5. 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 452(e)(1) — Respondent's incorporation of new facilities\nin its IMP without conducting a risk analysis.\nIn the event that PHMSA finds a violation of either of these Items in a subsequent\ninspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt.\nJe e D, Wiese\nAs oc ate Administrator\nfor ' eline Safety\nDate Issued","truncated":false,"body_characters":9589}