{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520055007","title":"EXXONMOBIL BILLINGS REFINERY — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2005-02-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.1(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520055007.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520055007.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520055007","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520055007","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving EXXONMOBIL BILLINGS REFINERY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.1(c). The case was opened on 2005-02-11 and is reported as closed as of 2009-07-23. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520055007_Final Order_07232009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520055007/520055007_Final%20Order_07232009.pdf\n\n520055007_Final Order_07232009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520055007/520055007_Final%20Order_07232009_text.pdf\n\n520055007_Final Order_07232009_text.pdf\n\nJUL 23 2009\nMr. Ian F. Scoble\nDirector, Refining Americas\nExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company\n3225 Gallows Road, Room 6B2112\nFairfax, VA 22037\nRe: CPF No. 5-2005-5007\nDear Mr. Scoble:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation\nand finds that you have completed the actions specified in the Notice required to comply with the\npipeline safety regulations. This case is now closed. Your receipt of this Final Order constitutes\nservice 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: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA\nMr. Ron Kuhler, ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company\nP.O. Box 1163, Billings, Montana 59103\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 0390 0005 6162 5043]\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 Refining ) CPF No. 5-2005-5007\n& Supply Company, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n______________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn September 30, 2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) conducted an on-\nsite pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of ExxonMobil’s Billings Refinery\nbreakout tank. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director),\nissued to ExxonMobil Pipeline Company (EMPCo), by letter dated February 11, 2005, a Notice\nof Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that EMPCo had violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195\nand proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violation.\nEMPCo responded to the Notice by letter dated March 14, 2005, as supplemented by letter dated\nMarch 10, 2006. EMPCo explained that the Billings breakout tank was on the grounds of the\nBillings Refinery and informed PHMSA that ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company was the\nappropriate Respondent and would be providing a substantive response to the Notice. On\nFebruary 7, 2006, a copy of the Notice was issued to ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company\n(Respondent). By letter dated March 13, 2006, Respondent contested the allegation, offered\ninformation in explanation of the allegations, and requested an informal hearing. A hearing was\nheld via teleconference on August 9, 2007 at which Respondent was represented by counsel.\nLarry L. White from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, served as Presiding Official. After\nthe hearing, Respondent provided additional information for the record on September 10, 2007.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\n\n\n\n2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.1(c), which states:\n§ 195.1 Applicability.\n(a) . . .\n(c) Breakout tanks subject to this part must comply with requirements\nthat apply specifically to breakout tanks and, to the extent applicable, with\nrequirements that apply to pipeline systems and pipeline facilities. If a conflict\nexists between a requirement that applies specifically to breakout tanks and a\nrequirement that applies to pipeline systems or pipeline facilities, the\nrequirement that applies specifically to breakout tanks prevails. Anhydrous\nammonia breakout tanks need not comply with §§195.132(b), 195.205(b),\n195.242(c) and (d), 195.264(b) and (e), 195.307, 195.428(c) and (d), and\n195.432(b) and (c).\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to inspect and maintain Billings Refinery\nTank #2 in accordance with the Part 195 requirements applicable to breakout tanks.\nIn its Response and during the hearing, Respondent stated that it did not consider Tank #2 to be a\nbreakout tank. Respondent contended that the surge relief valves at mainline motor-operated\nvalve locations outside the Billings facility were adequate to protect the mainline system from\npressure surges, without relief from Tank #2. Respondent argued that these mainline\noverpressure protection valves would ensure that pipeline pressures could not exceed 110% of\nthe maximum operating pressure (MOP) during upset conditions. This included a pressure relief\nvalve at the meter skid. Respondent provided a surge analysis based on scenarios where the\nYellowstone valve closed while a pump station was injecting crude oil into the pipeline, resulting\nin pressures corresponding to approximately 108% of MOP. In addition, Respondent stated at\nthe hearing that, to the best of its knowledge, the tank had never actually received a surge.\nRespondent also provided relevant operating records.\nAt the hearing, OPS countered that the company’s surge modeling was only accurate to within 4-\n5% of what the actual pressure would be and that, as a result, the pressures could potentially be\nanywhere between 104% and 112% of MOP. Therefore, the pressure control valve in place\nwould not actually stop the surge and pressure would be relieved into the breakout tank in these\nsituations. OPS also noted that the pressure relief valve at the meter skid was designed to protect\nonly the meter skid itself.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 195.2, a breakout tank is defined as:\n“… a tank used to (a) relieve surges in a hazardous liquid pipeline system or (b)\nreceive and store hazardous liquid transported by a pipeline for reinjection and\ncontinued transportation by pipeline.”\n\n\n\n3\nThat same section defines surge pressure as:\n“… pressure produced by a change in velocity of the moving stream that results\nfrom shutting down a pump station or pumping unit, closure of a valve, or any\nother blockage of the moving stream.”\nThe definitions of breakout tank and surge pressure do not require that 110% of MOP be\nexceeded. Respondent acknowledged that Tank #2 is not isolated from pipeline pressure. Thus,\nthe potential for the tank to relieve surges in the pipeline system is clearly present. Therefore,\nTank #2 meets the definition of a breakout tank and is subject to the Part 195 breakout tank\nrequirements, regardless of whether it has yet to actually receive a surge.\nFinally, Respondent argued that the applicability of PHMSA’s regulations to its piping ended at\nthe fenceline of the Billings facility. This is incorrect. It is well established that the exemptions\nin the pipeline safety regulations for production, refining, and terminal facilities do not cover\npiping on the grounds of such facilities up to the pressure control device inside the facility (see\ne.g., 49 C.F.R. § 195.1(b)(7)-(8)), including piping to a breakout tank when present.\nAccordingly, after considering all the evidence arguments presented, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 190.1(c) by failing to inspect and maintain Billings Refinery Tank #2 in\naccordance with the Part 195 requirements applicable to breakout tanks.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice. Under\n49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who\nowns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards\nestablished under chapter 601. In its Response, Respondent informed PHMSA that it began\ntreating Tank #2 as a breakout tank on November 9, 2005, including establishing operating and\nmaintenance procedures, API inspections, operator qualification and spill response plans, and the\ninstallation of cathodic protection. Accordingly, since compliance has been achieved with\nrespect to this violation, it is unnecessary to include compliance terms in this Order.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a petition for reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be received within 20 days\nof Respondent’s receipt of this Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s).\nThe terms of the order, including any required corrective action, shall remain in full force and\n\n\n\n4\neffect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions\nof this Final Order are effective upon receipt.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":9228}