{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520055008","title":"EXXONMOBIL PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2005-02-18","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.112(c), 195.214(a), 195.214(b), 195.266(b), 195.402(a), 195.402(e)(7), 195.403(c), 195.410(a)(2)(ii), 195.420(b), 195.428(a), 195.555, 195.573(e), 195.579(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520055008.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520055008.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520055008","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520055008","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving EXXONMOBIL PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.112(c),  195.214(a),  195.214(b),  195.266(b),  195.402(a),  195.402(e)(7),  195.403(c),  195.410(a)(2)(ii),  195.420(b),  195.428(a),  195.555,  195.573(e),  195.579(c). The case was opened on 2005-02-18 and is reported as closed as of 2009-08-06. Proposed civil penalty: $5,000. Assessed civil penalty: $0. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520055008_Final Order_01092007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520055008/520055008_Final%20Order_01092007.pdf\n\n520055008_final order_01092007_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520055008/520055008_final%20order_01092007_text.pdf\n\n520055008_FinalOrder_08062009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520055008/520055008_FinalOrder_08062009.pdf\n\n520055008_FinalOrder_08062009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520055008/520055008_FinalOrder_08062009_text.pdf\n\n520055008_Withdrawal of Final Order_01182007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520055008/520055008_Withdrawal%20of%20Final%20Order_01182007.pdf\n\n520055008_final order_01092007_text.pdf\n\nU 5 DepartrTtenr\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\n400 Seventh Street, S W\nWashington, D C 20590\nJAN - 9 2607\nMr Rt. hard A Rabino'v\nPresident\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company\n800 Bell St,\nHouston, TX 77J02\nRe: CPF No. 5-2005-5008\nDear Mr. Rabinow;\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued hy the Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety\nin the above-referenced case. It withdraws two of the Notice Items, makes findings of violation,\nand assesses a civil penalty of $5, 000. The Final Order also specifies actions to be taken to\ncomply with the pipeline safety regiilations and revision of certain procedures/plans The\npenalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order When the civil penalty is paid and the\nterms of the Compliance Order and Amendment of Procedures are completed, as determmed by\nthe Director, Western Region, PHMSA, this enforcement action will be closed Your receipt of\nthe I'inal Order constitutes service under 49 C. F. R g 190 5.\nSincerely,\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nPHMSA-Office of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ms. Candice Vrembling Di khuizen, Esq.\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company\nLaw Department\n800 Bell Street\nHouston, Texas 77702\n\n\n\nMr. Jimmy James, Operations Manager — Northern Region\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company\n3225 Gallows Road\nFairfax, Virginia 22037\nMr. Chris Hoidal, P E.\n,\nDirector Western Region, PHMSA\nMr. Jerry Davis, P. E.\n,\nWestern Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\nIn the Matter of\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company,\nRespondent\nCPF No. 5-2005-5008\nFINAL ORDER\nOn or about June 28, 2004 to July I, 2004, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. ( 60117, a representative of the\nPipelme and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA's)' Office of Pipelme Safety\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's facilities, manuals, and records\nat the Silvertip Station, Bridger Booster Station, Cenex Refinery delivery point in Laurel,\nMontana and the ConocoPhillips Refinery and ExxonMobil Refinery delivery points in Billings,\nMontana. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, PHMSA, issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated February 18, 2005, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, Proposed Compliance Order, and Notice of Amendment (Notice) In accordance with\n49 C. F. R. $ 190. 207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent committed violations of\n49 C. F. R. Part 195, proposed assessing a civil penalty of $5, 000 for the alleged violation, and\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The\nNotice also proposed, in accordance with 49 C. F. R. ( 190 237, that Respondent amend its\nprocedures/plans. The Notice also warned Respondent to take appropriate corrective action\nRespondent responded to the Notice in a letter dated March 24, 2005 (Response). Respondent\ndid not dispute some of the Notice Items but did contest many of them, requested withdrawal of\ncertain Notice Items, offered information in explanation of the allegations, requested elimination\nof the proposed penalty, and requested a heanng.\nThe hearing was held on December 13, 2005, in Denver, Colorado. After this hearing,\nRespondent was granted permission and provided a post-hearing submission, dated February 7,\n2006.\n' Effective February 20, 2005, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) succeeded\nResearch and Special Programs Administration as the agency responsible for regulating safety in pipeline\ntransportation and hazardous matenals transportation See, section 108 of the Norman Y Mineta Research and\nSpecial Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-426, 118 Stat 2423-2429 (November 30, 2004)) See also, 70\nFed, Reg 8299 (February 18, 2005) redelegatmg the pipehne safety authorities and functions to the PHMSA\nAdministrator\n\n\n\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\n(Contested)\nItem 5a of the Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C. F R. g 195. 402(a) in that Respondent\nfailed to review several of the procedure manuals referenced in Respondent's DOT Liquids\nManual once each calendar year not to exceed 15 months,\nIn its first Response, Respondent contested this Notice Item by stating that its DOT Liquids\nManual is utilized as the primary manual for documenting DOT required written procedures It\nstated that this manual is reviewed at least once each calendar year not to exceed 15 months.\nRespondent further stated that these manuals are also reviewed formally on a periodic basis.\nRespondent contends that the dates of the latest reviews for these manuals were not properly\nupdated on its Reference Library but that these manuals had been updated on an annual basis for\ncontent. Respondent provided no documentation to support this claim\nAt the hearing, Respondent provided affidavits attesting that both the Pipeline Welding Manual\nand Pipeline Repair and Modifications Manual were reviewed in 2004 and the Hydrostatic Test\nManual was reviewed in June of 2004. It provided no documentation showing any of the\nprevious year's reviews.\nDuring the PHMSA inspection, on or about June 28, 2004 to July ], 2004, PHMSA inspectors\nnoted that the Hydrostatic Test Manual had not been reviewed since 1993 49 CFR Part 195\nSubpart E Pressure Testing has had substantive changes made since 1993 Additionally,\nPHMSA inspectors noted that the phone numbers in the \"working\" Facility Response Manual\nhad not been updated since May 18, 2000. This was evidenced by a \"sticky note\" attached to the\nmanual that said, \"Need to Check numbers \" When asked what the note meant, Respondent's\npersonnel replied that it had not confirmed the telephone numbers since May 18, 2000.\nBecause Respondent's DOT Liquids Manual refers to other manuals for procedures required\nunder Part 195, those referenced procedures are considered to be a part of the manual of written\nprocedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal\noperations and emergencies. Therefore, as part of its manual review, all referenced procedures\nrequired under Part 195 must also be reviewed to ensure effectiveness, once each calendar year\nnot to exceed 15 months.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C, F. R. g 195 402(a) in the Notice\nItem 12a of the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 573(e). Respondent's\ncathodic protection (CP) momtoring procedures call for trending of current pipe to soil (P/S)\nreadings with the last three years readings to determine if CP is adequate. Corrosion control\nrecords lack documentation of actions taken to correct deficiencies found when trending current\nmonitoring levels.\nRespondent contested this Proposed Compliance Order item on the grounds that all\n\n\n\nmeasurements were above -S50 mV during the 2001, 2002, and 2003 pipe to soil monitoring.\nDuring this inspection of CP monitoring records, only two years of data were available to\ncompare to the October 13, 2003 data. This does not follow Respondent's procedures, which\nrequires the current CP data to be compared to the previous three years of data. If the report had\nincluded the CP monitoring data for 2000, it is possible that the areas of low reading could have\nbeen reconciled. As the report now shows, there are still some areas of low readings for 2003\nStationing of those apparent low readings in 2003 are MP 0 to MP 0. 3, MP 1, 05 to MP 1. 4, MP\n5. 05 to MP 7. 0, MP 9. 2 to MP 10. 05, MP 44. 75 to MP 49. 9, MP 60 8 to MP 62. 4. Without the\n2000 year CP monitoring data, it is not possible to determine if these \"low\" areas meet the\ncriteria shown in Respondent's procedures.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C F. R. $ 195 573(e) in the Notice.\nItem 12b in the Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 573(e) Respondent\nperformed a close interval survey in 1999 That survey had several areas that did not meet a\n-850 mV with impressed current interrupted criteria. Though Respondent resolved several of\nthese low areas during a resurvey in 2000, its records did not have corrective actions taken to\nmitigate those low areas that continued to have low CP monitoring levels during the 2000\nresurvey. In particular were the locations referred to as CIS Stations 564+00 to 565+S9 and\n2509+73 to 2518+90.\nRespondent provided information to PHMSA showing that measures have been taken to\nremediate the low levels of CP found during a 2000 close interval survey between stations\n564+00 and 565+S9.\nRespondent also made a stateinent that a close interval survey completed on May 19, 2005 shows\nthat the area between stations 2509+73 to 2523+79 have adequate levels of CP.\nRecords provided for stations 564+00 to 565+S9 show that adequate measures have been taken.\nNo records or data were provided showing that mitigative measures have been taken between\nstations 2509+73 to 2523+79. Respondent only offered a statement that a close interval survey\nbetween these stations shows that adequate levels of CP have been provided. Though this may\nbe true, it cannot be verified by PHMSA until Respondent submits the data &om the 2005 close\ninterval survey.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C, F. R. $ 195. 573(e) in the Notice.\nCPF No. 5-2003-5006 Notice Item 2 required that Respondent amend its procedures to clarify how voltage drops\nare taken mto account when performing \"on\" CP inonitoring surveys. Respondent amended its procedures to more\naccurately describe what it did to take the voltage drops into account durmg annual CP monitoring surveys. Its\namended procedure, on page 3 of 12 of Respondent's Facilities Inspection and Maintenance Manageinent system\nCathodic Protection Program, dated October 5, 2003, stated: \"The annual pipe-to-soils shall be plotted and\ncompared to the last three years When a significant drop in potential is noted, further investigation should be\nscheduled to identify the cause \"\n\n\n\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nWITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE ITEMS\nItem 2 in the Notice alleged that Respondent had violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195 214(a) in that\nRespondent's girth weld records of the 2000 line lowering project did not indicate which welder\nperformed each weld. Respondent contested this Warning Letter Item and provided\ndocumentation, including an affidavit from a welding inspector, which mdicates who the welders\nwere for the 2000 line-lowering prospect and that they were qualified. The affidavit provided by\nRespondent states that Kenneth M, Thompson was partly responsible for welding mspection\nduring this project. As such, he named Mr. Mark Thiel and Mr. Todd Dehner as the welders\nQualifications provided for these two welders show that they both have multiple qualifications\nunder API 1104, which qualifies these welders to do all weldmg provided the process and filler\nmaterial is the same as their qualification. Assuming that the weldmg done during this project\nwas \"production\" welding and not \"in-service\" welding, it is reasonable that the welding\nprocedure used incorporated a Type I or 2 filler material using a shielded metal arc welding\nprocess. Both welders were qualified using these vanables. Documentation provided by\nRespondent adequately addresses this Notice Item. Based on this information demonstrating\ncoinpliance with the regulation, I am withdrawing this Warning Letter Item.\nItem 7 in the Notice alleged that Respondent had violated 49 C. F. R. $ $ 195 402(c)(3) and\n195. 420(b) by failing to include in the DOT valve inspection procedures inspection of the\ncomponents of the valve or procedures requiring any documentation of such inspections.\nRespondent contested this Notice of Ainendinent Itein It provided its procedure for valve\ninaintenance. In that procedure, there is a description for the inspection of components that\nshould be checked: \"During the operation of each valve, its operating condition shall be checked\nand corrections made where necessary. Such items as condition of gears, ease of operation,\ncondition and position of indicator, etc.\n,\nshould be checked. \" This procedure appears to be\nadequate. Based on this information demonstrating compliance with the regulation, I am\nwithdrawing this Notice of Amendment Item.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U. S. C. g 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100, 000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1, 000, 000 for any related series of\nviolations.\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 The\nNotice proposed a total civil penalty of $5, 000 for violation of 49 C. F. R $ 195. 402(a)\n\n\n\nItem 5a of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5, 000 for violation of 49 C. F. R ( 195. 402(a),\nas more fully described in the Notice As discussed above in this Final Order, Respondent failed\nto review several of the procedure manuals referenced in Respondent's DOT Liquids Manual\nonce each calendar year not to exceed 15 months. Respondent contends that the $5000 penalty is\nexcessive given the minor technical nature of the alleged violation This is the second violation\nof this nature that PHMSA has issued to Respondent, the first was a Warning in CPF 5-2003-\n5006. The intent of the rule is to prevent procedures, required by Part 195 for normal, abnormal,\nemergency and maintenance operations, from becoming ineffective and possibly leading to an\nincident. This violation is not considered to be trivial.\nHere, of the 69 miles of pipeline, there is over twenty miles that could affect Drinking Water\nUSAs (\" Unusually Sensitive Areas\" ) for Billings, Montana and outlying areas. There are two\ncrossings of the Yellowstone River and two crossings of tributaries to the Yellowstone River.\nThe pipeline goes through the south side of Billings, which is a High Population Area.\nAdditionally, there are at least two Other Population Areas, Bridger and Fromber, that could be\naffected by a crude oil release. There are also some environmentally sensitive USAs along this\npipeline's route that could be affected by a release.\nGiven the public and environmental concerns and that this is the second violation of this type in\na two year period, this penalty is not considered to be excessive,\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $5, 000 for the violation. Respondent has the ability to pay this\npenalty without adversely affecting its ability to continue in business.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Payment may be\nmade by sending a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number for this\ncase) payable to \"U. S. Department of Transportation\" to the Federal Aviation\nAdministration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Financial Operations Division\n(AMZ-300), P. O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125.\nFederal regulations (49 C, F. R. $ 89. 21(b)(3)) also permit this payment to be made by wire\ntransfer, through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account\nof the U. S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions\nconcerning wire transfers should be directed to Financial Operations Division (AMZ-\n300), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P. O. Box\n25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $5, 000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U. S. C. f 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.\n\n\n\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Items 12a and 12b in the Notice,\nUnder 49 U. S. C. g 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids\nor who owns or operates a pipelme facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under Chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U, S. C $ 60118(b) and\n49 C. F. R, $ 190. 217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance\nwith thc pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations Respondent must-\nWith respect to Item 12a of the Notice, provide docuinentation for the Silvertip\npipeline of actions taken to correct deficiencies found during the 2002 and 2003\nmonitoring surveys;\nWith respect to Item 12b of the Notice, provide docuinentation of those corrective\nactions taken for CIS 2509+73 to 2518+90, which did not meet the -850 mV critena\nin 1999 or 2000;\nMaintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling\nthis Compliance Order and submit the total to Director, Western Region, PHMSA\nCosts shall be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost\nassociated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure;\nand\n4. Within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order, submit documentation of procedures,\ncosts and evidence of actions taken to the Director, Western Region, Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration, 12300 West Dakota Avenue, Suite 110,\nLakewood, Colorado 80228. Please refer to CPF No 5-2005-5008 on any\ncorrespondence or communication in these matters.\nThe Director, Western Region, PHMSA, may grant an extension of time to comply with any of\nthe required items upon a written request timely submitted by Respondent demonstrating good\ncause for an extension,\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $100, 000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nAMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES\nItems 6, 7, 8, and 11 of the Notice alleged inadequacies in Respondent's procedures/plans and\nproposed to require amendment of Respondent's procedures to coinply with the requirements of\n49 C. F, R. $ g 195. 402 (e)(7) (Notice Item 6), 195. 402(c)(3) and 195. 420(b) (Notice Item 7),\n195. 403(c) (Notice Item 8), and 195. 555 (Notice Item 11). Respondent did not contest Notice\nItem 6 but did contest Notice of Amendment Items 7, 8, and 11. As discussed above, Notice\nItem 7 was withdrawn.\n\n\n\nItem 8 in the Notice alleged inadequacies in complying with 49 C. F. R. )195. 403(c) in that\nRespondent's process for verifying a supervisor's knowledge of emergency procedures currently\nrequires self-validation, i. e, the supervisor must sign that s/he is familiar with procedures\nwithout any check or review process to validate his/her knowledge Respondent contested this\nNotice of Amendment Item by stating that supervisors affirm their knowledge of emergency\nresponse procedures and managers review this statement. A supervisor's affirmation of\nknowledge and subsequent review of this affirmation by the manager is not considered to be\nverification. Verification should entail some method that ensures that the supervisor knows and\nunderstands the emergency response procedures This may include testing or a review of\nprocedures or critiques of a supervisor's actions during emergency response activities, both for\ntabletop exercises and actual events.\nItem 11 in the Notice alleged inadequacies in complying with 49 C, F. R 195, 555 in that\nRespondent's process for verifying a supervisor's knowledge of corrosion control procedures\ncurrently requires self-validation, i. e.\n,\nthe supervisor must sign that s/he is familiar with\nprocedures without any check or review process to validate his/her knowledge Respondent\ncontested this Notice of Amendment Item by stating that supervisors affirm their knowledge of\ncorrosion control procedures and managers review this statement. Additionally, Respondent\ncontends that this is the same allegation as Notice Item 8. A supervisor's affirmation of\nknowledge and subsequent review of this affirmation by the manager is not considered to be\nverification. Verification should entail some method that ensures that the supervisor knows and\nunderstands the CP procedures. This may include testing or a review of procedures or critiques\nof a supervisor's actions during corrosion control activities. Because the procedures for\ncorrosion do not reside under emergency response procedures, PHMSA considers these two\nNotice of Amendment Items to be separate\nAs discussed above, Respondent did not contest Notice Item 6, indicating that it is updating its\nemergency response plan. With respect to Notice Items 7, 8, and 11, Respondent submitted\ninformation, which Western Region, PHMSA, reviewed Accordingly, based on the results of\nthis review and the information at hand, I find that Respondent's procedures as described in the\nNotice for Items 6, 8, and 11 were inadequate to ensure safe operation of its pipeline system;\nNotice Item 7 was withdrawn. Pursuant to 49 U. S. C. $ 60108(a) and 49 C. F R. (190. 237,\nRespondent is ordered to make the following revisions to its procedures. Respondent must—\nI, Amend its procedures/plans with updated emergency response plan contact\ninformation, The procedures, includmg contact information, for emergencies should\nbe updated at least once per year at intervals not exceeding 15 months (Notice Item\n6),\n2. Amend its process for verifying a supervisor's knowledge of emergency response\nprocedures to ensure there are adequate checks and balances (Notice Item 8); and\n3. Ainend its process for verifying a supervisor's knowledge of corrosion control\nprocedures to ensure there are adequate checks and balances (Notice Item 11).\n\n\n\n4 Within 30 days following receipt of this Order, submit the amended procedures to\nthe Director, Western Region, PHMSA.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by Respondent demonstrating good cause for an extension,\nFailure to comply with this Order Directing Amendment may result in the assessment of civil\npenalties of up to $100, 000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in the\nreferral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States\nWARNING ITEMS\nAs noted above, Warning Item 2 in the Notice is dropped The Notice did not propose a civil\npenalty or corrective action for Notice Item 1 (49 C. F. R $ 195. 112(c)), Notice Item 3 (49 C. F. R.\n$ 195. 214(b)), Notice Item 4 (49 C, F. R. $ 195, 266(b)), Notice Item 5b (49 C. F. R. $ 195. 402(a)),\nNotice Item 5c (49 C. F. R. $ 195, 402(a)), Notice Item 9 (49 C. F. R. $ 195. 410(a)(2)(i-ii)), Notice\nItem 10 (49 C. F. R. $ 195. 428(a)), and Notice Item 13 (49 C, F. R. $ 195. 579(c)) but warned\nRespondent that it should take appropriate corrective action to correct the items as more fully\ndescribed in the Notice. Respondent presented information regarding Warning Items 2, 3, 9, and\n10 in its Response and/or at the hearing and acknowledged the other Warning Items in the\nNotice. With respect to Notice Items 3, 9, and 10—\nItem 3 in the Notice warned that Respondent's welding procedures were missing in the pro]ect\ndocumentation for Sugar Plant reroute and the 2000 line lowenng project. 49 C F. R\n$ 195. 214(b) requires that each welding procedure must be recorded in detail, including the\nresults of the qualifying tests. This record must be retained and followed whenever the\nprocedure is used. Respondent disagreed with this Warmng Letter Item and provided\ndocumentation of welding specifications and of one welding procedure. Documents presented\nby Respondent did not provide any evidence indicating that the provided welding procedure was\nused during the 2000 line-lowering project, After review of the available information, this is\nconsidered a Warning Item and neither a civil penalty nor Compliance Order is attached to this\nNotice Item.\nItem 9 in the Notice warned that Respondent's ROW markers at several locations had phone\nnumber lettering that was severely faded making reading of the phone number difficult\nAdditionally, several markers had the company name of Exxon and not ExxonMobil.\nRespondent disputed this Warning Letter Item, stating that although phone numbers were faded\nthey could still be read. PHMSA photos taken during this inspection indicated that the phone\nnumbers on some ROW markers were not legible Respondent did not provide any other\nevidence for compliance with 49 C. F R $ 195. 410(a)(2)(i-ii) After review of the available\ninformation, this is considered a Warning Item and neither a civil penalty nor Compliance Order\nis attached to this Notice Item\nItem 10 in the Notice warned that Respondent only documents the data obtained during testing\nand calibration of the pressure transmitters on its pipeline that assist in metering. It did not\ndocument data obtained during the testing and calibration of other pressure transmitters on its\n\n\n\npipeline system. If a pressure transmitter is sending signals to another device or a SCADA\nsystem that controls pressure, then that transmitter is considered to be a pressure control device\nand as such must be tested and inspected and the data be recorded once each calendar year not to\nexceed 15 months in accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 428(a), Respondent disagreed with this\nWarning Letter Item, stating that pressure transmitters that send pressure and flow rate signals to\ncontrol logic devices or a remote operating control center are not pressure control equipment.\nSince these devices are integral in the control of pressures for the Silvertip pipeline, PHMSA\ndoes not agree with Respondent's mterpretation, After review of the available information, this\nis considered a Warning Item and neither a civil penalty nor Compliance Order is attached to this\nNotice Item.\nWith respect to all the Warning Items m the Notice, except for Notice Item 2, Respondent is\nagain warned that if PHMSA finds a violation for any of these items in a subsequent inspection,\nenforcement action will be taken\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. All other terms of the Order,\nincluding any required corrective action and amendment of procedures, remain in full effect\nunless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this\nFinal Order are effective on receipt.\nJAN - 9 2007\nDate Issued\ne dore, Willke\nA ti g Associate Administrator\nPipeline Safety\n\n520055008_FinalOrder_08062009_text.pdf\n\nAUG 6 2009\nMr. Gary W. Pruessing\nPresident\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company\n800 Bell Street\nRoom 623F\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 5-2005-5008\nDear Mr. Pruessing:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the Notice and\nterminates this enforcement proceeding, without prejudice, as a matter of administrative discretion.\nYour receipt of the 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: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, OPS\nCandice Frembling Dykhuizen, Counsel, Law Department,\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 0390 0005 6162 5678\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n______________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 5-2005-5008\n)\nRespondent. )\n______________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom June 28 to July 1, 2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), inspected\nthe facilities and records of the ExxonMobil Pipeline Company (EMPCo or Respondent). EMPCo\noperates a 69-mile hazardous liquid pipeline system that runs from the Silver Tip Station in Carbon\nCounty, Montana, to the company’s refinery in Billings, Montana.\nAs a result of that inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to EMPCo, by\nletter dated February 18, 2005, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Compliance Order,\nProposed Civil Penalty, and Notice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that EMPCo had violated Part 195 of the federal pipeline\nsafety regulations, assessing a civil penalty of $5,000 for one of the violations, and ordering the\ncompany to take certain actions to correct one of the other violations. The Notice also ordered\nRespondent to amend its written procedures.\nBy letter dated March 24, 2005 (Response), EMPCo responded to the Notice by disputing some of\nthe alleged violations, opposing the proposed compliance order and civil penalty, and requesting an\ninformal hearing. On January 9, 2007, after a hearing was held, PHMSA issued a Final Order in this\nmatter. As a courtesy to and at the request of EMPCo, however, PHMSA later withdrew the Final\nOrder and held a new hearing on April 12, 2007.\nThe Director has informed PHMSA that a re-inspection of EMPCo’s hazardous liquid pipeline\nsystem occurred from July 27 to 30, 2009.\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATIONS\nCiting the unusual procedural history of this case and the imminent re-inspection of EMPCo’s\nfacilities, the Director has recommended that these proceedings be terminated and that the Items in\nthis Notice be addressed on re-inspection. Accordingly, upon consideration of his recommendation\nand the unique circumstances of this case, I hereby withdraw the February 2005 Notice without\nprejudice as a matter of administrative discretion.1\nThis case is now closed.\n1 Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985).\n\n\n\n2\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 terms of the order, including\nany required corrective action and amendment of procedures, shall remain in full force and effect\nunless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be effective upon receipt.\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n520055008_Withdrawal of Final Order_01182007.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\nJAN 1 ?\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nBY FEDERAL EXPRESS\nCandice Frembling Dykhuizen\nCounsel\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company\n800 Bell Street, Ste. PL-EMB-707F\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 5-2005-5008\nDear Ms. Dykhuizen:\nPursuant to your request, this withdraws the Final Order in the above referenced case, and\nassigns a Presiding Official for a hearing de novo due to the departure of the attorney who acted\nas the Presiding Official in the previous hearing.\nIn accordance with 49 C.F.R. 5 190.21 1, an informal hearing will be held regarding the Notice of\nProbable Violation, Proposed Compliance Order, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Notice of\nAmendment issued to ExxonMobil on February 18,2005. Denise Desautels, Esq. is the assigned\nPresiding Official in the case. Please contact her at (202) 366-9085 to schedule a hearing.\nSincerely,\nU o s e p h Ahern\nDeputy Chief Counsel\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Richard A. Rabinow\nPresident\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company\n800 Bell St.\nHouston, TX 77002\n\n\n\nMr. Jimmy James, Operations Manag er-Northern Region\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company\n3225 Gallows Road\nFairfax, VA 22037\nMr. Chris Hoidal, P.E., Director Western Region, PHMSA\nMs. Denise Desautels, Presiding Official","truncated":false,"body_characters":34070}