# EXXONMOBIL PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

520055008_Final Order_01092007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520055008/520055008_Final%20Order_01092007.pdf

520055008_final order_01092007_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520055008/520055008_final%20order_01092007_text.pdf

520055008_FinalOrder_08062009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520055008/520055008_FinalOrder_08062009.pdf

520055008_FinalOrder_08062009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520055008/520055008_FinalOrder_08062009_text.pdf

520055008_Withdrawal of Final Order_01182007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520055008/520055008_Withdrawal%20of%20Final%20Order_01182007.pdf

520055008_final order_01092007_text.pdf

U 5 DepartrTtenr
of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street, S W
Washington, D C 20590
JAN - 9 2607
Mr Rt. hard A Rabino'v
President
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company
800 Bell St,
Houston, TX 77J02
Re: CPF No. 5-2005-5008
Dear Mr. Rabinow;
Enclosed is the Final Order issued hy the Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety
in the above-referenced case. It withdraws two of the Notice Items, makes findings of violation,
and assesses a civil penalty of $5, 000. The Final Order also specifies actions to be taken to
comply with the pipeline safety regiilations and revision of certain procedures/plans The
penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order When the civil penalty is paid and the
terms of the Compliance Order and Amendment of Procedures are completed, as determmed by
the Director, Western Region, PHMSA, this enforcement action will be closed Your receipt of
the I'inal Order constitutes service under 49 C. F. R g 190 5.
Sincerely,
James Reynolds
Pipeline Compliance Registry
PHMSA-Office of Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Candice Vrembling Di khuizen, Esq.
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company
Law Department
800 Bell Street
Houston, Texas 77702



Mr. Jimmy James, Operations Manager — Northern Region
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company
3225 Gallows Road
Fairfax, Virginia 22037
Mr. Chris Hoidal, P E.
,
Director Western Region, PHMSA
Mr. Jerry Davis, P. E.
,
Western Region, PHMSA
CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, DC 20590
In the Matter of
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company,
Respondent
CPF No. 5-2005-5008
FINAL ORDER
On or about June 28, 2004 to July I, 2004, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. ( 60117, a representative of the
Pipelme and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA's)' Office of Pipelme Safety
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's facilities, manuals, and records
at the Silvertip Station, Bridger Booster Station, Cenex Refinery delivery point in Laurel,
Montana and the ConocoPhillips Refinery and ExxonMobil Refinery delivery points in Billings,
Montana. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, PHMSA, issued to
Respondent, by letter dated February 18, 2005, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, Proposed Compliance Order, and Notice of Amendment (Notice) In accordance with
49 C. F. R. $ 190. 207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent committed violations of
49 C. F. R. Part 195, proposed assessing a civil penalty of $5, 000 for the alleged violation, and
proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The
Notice also proposed, in accordance with 49 C. F. R. ( 190 237, that Respondent amend its
procedures/plans. The Notice also warned Respondent to take appropriate corrective action
Respondent responded to the Notice in a letter dated March 24, 2005 (Response). Respondent
did not dispute some of the Notice Items but did contest many of them, requested withdrawal of
certain Notice Items, offered information in explanation of the allegations, requested elimination
of the proposed penalty, and requested a heanng.
The hearing was held on December 13, 2005, in Denver, Colorado. After this hearing,
Respondent was granted permission and provided a post-hearing submission, dated February 7,
2006.
' Effective February 20, 2005, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) succeeded
Research and Special Programs Administration as the agency responsible for regulating safety in pipeline
transportation and hazardous matenals transportation See, section 108 of the Norman Y Mineta Research and
Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-426, 118 Stat 2423-2429 (November 30, 2004)) See also, 70
Fed, Reg 8299 (February 18, 2005) redelegatmg the pipehne safety authorities and functions to the PHMSA
Administrator



FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
(Contested)
Item 5a of the Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C. F R. g 195. 402(a) in that Respondent
failed to review several of the procedure manuals referenced in Respondent's DOT Liquids
Manual once each calendar year not to exceed 15 months,
In its first Response, Respondent contested this Notice Item by stating that its DOT Liquids
Manual is utilized as the primary manual for documenting DOT required written procedures It
stated that this manual is reviewed at least once each calendar year not to exceed 15 months.
Respondent further stated that these manuals are also reviewed formally on a periodic basis.
Respondent contends that the dates of the latest reviews for these manuals were not properly
updated on its Reference Library but that these manuals had been updated on an annual basis for
content. Respondent provided no documentation to support this claim
At the hearing, Respondent provided affidavits attesting that both the Pipeline Welding Manual
and Pipeline Repair and Modifications Manual were reviewed in 2004 and the Hydrostatic Test
Manual was reviewed in June of 2004. It provided no documentation showing any of the
previous year's reviews.
During the PHMSA inspection, on or about June 28, 2004 to July ], 2004, PHMSA inspectors
noted that the Hydrostatic Test Manual had not been reviewed since 1993 49 CFR Part 195
Subpart E Pressure Testing has had substantive changes made since 1993 Additionally,
PHMSA inspectors noted that the phone numbers in the "working" Facility Response Manual
had not been updated since May 18, 2000. This was evidenced by a "sticky note" attached to the
manual that said, "Need to Check numbers " When asked what the note meant, Respondent's
personnel replied that it had not confirmed the telephone numbers since May 18, 2000.
Because Respondent's DOT Liquids Manual refers to other manuals for procedures required
under Part 195, those referenced procedures are considered to be a part of the manual of written
procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal
operations and emergencies. Therefore, as part of its manual review, all referenced procedures
required under Part 195 must also be reviewed to ensure effectiveness, once each calendar year
not to exceed 15 months.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C, F. R. g 195 402(a) in the Notice
Item 12a of the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 573(e). Respondent's
cathodic protection (CP) momtoring procedures call for trending of current pipe to soil (P/S)
readings with the last three years readings to determine if CP is adequate. Corrosion control
records lack documentation of actions taken to correct deficiencies found when trending current
monitoring levels.
Respondent contested this Proposed Compliance Order item on the grounds that all



measurements were above -S50 mV during the 2001, 2002, and 2003 pipe to soil monitoring.
During this inspection of CP monitoring records, only two years of data were available to
compare to the October 13, 2003 data. This does not follow Respondent's procedures, which
requires the current CP data to be compared to the previous three years of data. If the report had
included the CP monitoring data for 2000, it is possible that the areas of low reading could have
been reconciled. As the report now shows, there are still some areas of low readings for 2003
Stationing of those apparent low readings in 2003 are MP 0 to MP 0. 3, MP 1, 05 to MP 1. 4, MP
5. 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
2000 year CP monitoring data, it is not possible to determine if these "low" areas meet the
criteria shown in Respondent's procedures.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C F. R. $ 195 573(e) in the Notice.
Item 12b in the Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 573(e) Respondent
performed a close interval survey in 1999 That survey had several areas that did not meet a
-850 mV with impressed current interrupted criteria. Though Respondent resolved several of
these low areas during a resurvey in 2000, its records did not have corrective actions taken to
mitigate those low areas that continued to have low CP monitoring levels during the 2000
resurvey. In particular were the locations referred to as CIS Stations 564+00 to 565+S9 and
2509+73 to 2518+90.
Respondent provided information to PHMSA showing that measures have been taken to
remediate the low levels of CP found during a 2000 close interval survey between stations
564+00 and 565+S9.
Respondent also made a stateinent that a close interval survey completed on May 19, 2005 shows
that the area between stations 2509+73 to 2523+79 have adequate levels of CP.
Records provided for stations 564+00 to 565+S9 show that adequate measures have been taken.
No records or data were provided showing that mitigative measures have been taken between
stations 2509+73 to 2523+79. Respondent only offered a statement that a close interval survey
between these stations shows that adequate levels of CP have been provided. Though this may
be true, it cannot be verified by PHMSA until Respondent submits the data &om the 2005 close
interval survey.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C, F. R. $ 195. 573(e) in the Notice.
CPF No. 5-2003-5006 Notice Item 2 required that Respondent amend its procedures to clarify how voltage drops
are taken mto account when performing "on" CP inonitoring surveys. Respondent amended its procedures to more
accurately describe what it did to take the voltage drops into account durmg annual CP monitoring surveys. Its
amended procedure, on page 3 of 12 of Respondent's Facilities Inspection and Maintenance Manageinent system
Cathodic Protection Program, dated October 5, 2003, stated: "The annual pipe-to-soils shall be plotted and
compared to the last three years When a significant drop in potential is noted, further investigation should be
scheduled to identify the cause "



These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE ITEMS
Item 2 in the Notice alleged that Respondent had violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195 214(a) in that
Respondent's girth weld records of the 2000 line lowering project did not indicate which welder
performed each weld. Respondent contested this Warning Letter Item and provided
documentation, including an affidavit from a welding inspector, which mdicates who the welders
were for the 2000 line-lowering prospect and that they were qualified. The affidavit provided by
Respondent states that Kenneth M, Thompson was partly responsible for welding mspection
during this project. As such, he named Mr. Mark Thiel and Mr. Todd Dehner as the welders
Qualifications provided for these two welders show that they both have multiple qualifications
under API 1104, which qualifies these welders to do all weldmg provided the process and filler
material is the same as their qualification. Assuming that the weldmg done during this project
was "production" welding and not "in-service" welding, it is reasonable that the welding
procedure used incorporated a Type I or 2 filler material using a shielded metal arc welding
process. Both welders were qualified using these vanables. Documentation provided by
Respondent adequately addresses this Notice Item. Based on this information demonstrating
coinpliance with the regulation, I am withdrawing this Warning Letter Item.
Item 7 in the Notice alleged that Respondent had violated 49 C. F. R. $ $ 195 402(c)(3) and
195. 420(b) by failing to include in the DOT valve inspection procedures inspection of the
components of the valve or procedures requiring any documentation of such inspections.
Respondent contested this Notice of Ainendinent Itein It provided its procedure for valve
inaintenance. In that procedure, there is a description for the inspection of components that
should be checked: "During the operation of each valve, its operating condition shall be checked
and corrections made where necessary. Such items as condition of gears, ease of operation,
condition and position of indicator, etc.
,
should be checked. " This procedure appears to be
adequate. Based on this information demonstrating compliance with the regulation, I am
withdrawing this Notice of Amendment Item.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U. S. C. g 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100, 000 per
violation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1, 000, 000 for any related series of
violations.
49 U. S. C. $ 60122 and 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil
penalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,
degree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability
to pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on
Respondent's ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require The
Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $5, 000 for violation of 49 C. F. R $ 195. 402(a)



Item 5a of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5, 000 for violation of 49 C. F. R ( 195. 402(a),
as more fully described in the Notice As discussed above in this Final Order, Respondent failed
to review several of the procedure manuals referenced in Respondent's DOT Liquids Manual
once each calendar year not to exceed 15 months. Respondent contends that the $5000 penalty is
excessive given the minor technical nature of the alleged violation This is the second violation
of this nature that PHMSA has issued to Respondent, the first was a Warning in CPF 5-2003-
5006. The intent of the rule is to prevent procedures, required by Part 195 for normal, abnormal,
emergency and maintenance operations, from becoming ineffective and possibly leading to an
incident. This violation is not considered to be trivial.
Here, of the 69 miles of pipeline, there is over twenty miles that could affect Drinking Water
USAs (" Unusually Sensitive Areas" ) for Billings, Montana and outlying areas. There are two
crossings of the Yellowstone River and two crossings of tributaries to the Yellowstone River.
The pipeline goes through the south side of Billings, which is a High Population Area.
Additionally, there are at least two Other Population Areas, Bridger and Fromber, that could be
affected by a crude oil release. There are also some environmentally sensitive USAs along this
pipeline's route that could be affected by a release.
Given the public and environmental concerns and that this is the second violation of this type in
a two year period, this penalty is not considered to be excessive,
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $5, 000 for the violation. Respondent has the ability to pay this
penalty without adversely affecting its ability to continue in business.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Payment may be
made by sending a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number for this
case) payable to "U. S. Department of Transportation" to the Federal Aviation
Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Financial Operations Division
(AMZ-300), P. O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125.
Federal regulations (49 C, F. R. $ 89. 21(b)(3)) also permit this 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 (AMZ-
300), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P. O. Box
25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.
Failure to pay the $5, 000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate
in accordance with 31 U. S. C. f 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
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United
States District Court.



COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Items 12a and 12b in the Notice,
Under 49 U. S. C. g 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids
or who owns or operates a pipelme facility is required to comply with the applicable safety
standards established under Chapter 601. 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 thc pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations Respondent must-
With respect to Item 12a of the Notice, provide docuinentation for the Silvertip
pipeline of actions taken to correct deficiencies found during the 2002 and 2003
monitoring surveys;
With respect to Item 12b of the Notice, provide docuinentation of those corrective
actions taken for CIS 2509+73 to 2518+90, which did not meet the -850 mV critena
in 1999 or 2000;
Maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling
this Compliance Order and submit the total to Director, Western Region, PHMSA
Costs shall 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;
and
4. Within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order, submit documentation of procedures,
costs and evidence of actions taken to the Director, Western Region, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 12300 West Dakota Avenue, Suite 110,
Lakewood, Colorado 80228. Please refer to CPF No 5-2005-5008 on any
correspondence or communication in these matters.
The Director, Western Region, PHMSA, may grant an extension of time to comply with any of
the required items upon a written request timely submitted by Respondent demonstrating good
cause for an extension,
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $100, 000 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.
AMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES
Items 6, 7, 8, and 11 of the Notice alleged inadequacies in Respondent's procedures/plans and
proposed to require amendment of Respondent's procedures to coinply with the requirements of
49 C. F, R. $ g 195. 402 (e)(7) (Notice Item 6), 195. 402(c)(3) and 195. 420(b) (Notice Item 7),
195. 403(c) (Notice Item 8), and 195. 555 (Notice Item 11). Respondent did not contest Notice
Item 6 but did contest Notice of Amendment Items 7, 8, and 11. As discussed above, Notice
Item 7 was withdrawn.



Item 8 in the Notice alleged inadequacies in complying with 49 C. F. R. )195. 403(c) in that
Respondent's process for verifying a supervisor's knowledge of emergency procedures currently
requires self-validation, i. e, the supervisor must sign that s/he is familiar with procedures
without any check or review process to validate his/her knowledge Respondent contested this
Notice of Amendment Item by stating that supervisors affirm their knowledge of emergency
response procedures and managers review this statement. A supervisor's affirmation of
knowledge and subsequent review of this affirmation by the manager is not considered to be
verification. Verification should entail some method that ensures that the supervisor knows and
understands the emergency response procedures This may include testing or a review of
procedures or critiques of a supervisor's actions during emergency response activities, both for
tabletop exercises and actual events.
Item 11 in the Notice alleged inadequacies in complying with 49 C, F. R 195, 555 in that
Respondent's process for verifying a supervisor's knowledge of corrosion control procedures
currently requires self-validation, i. e.
,
the supervisor must sign that s/he is familiar with
procedures without any check or review process to validate his/her knowledge Respondent
contested this Notice of Amendment Item by stating that supervisors affirm their knowledge of
corrosion control procedures and managers review this statement. Additionally, Respondent
contends that this is the same allegation as Notice Item 8. A supervisor's affirmation of
knowledge and subsequent review of this affirmation by the manager is not considered to be
verification. Verification should entail some method that ensures that the supervisor knows and
understands the CP procedures. This may include testing or a review of procedures or critiques
of a supervisor's actions during corrosion control activities. Because the procedures for
corrosion do not reside under emergency response procedures, PHMSA considers these two
Notice of Amendment Items to be separate
As discussed above, Respondent did not contest Notice Item 6, indicating that it is updating its
emergency response plan. With respect to Notice Items 7, 8, and 11, Respondent submitted
information, which Western Region, PHMSA, reviewed Accordingly, based on the results of
this review and the information at hand, I find that Respondent's procedures as described in the
Notice for Items 6, 8, and 11 were inadequate to ensure safe operation of its pipeline system;
Notice Item 7 was withdrawn. Pursuant to 49 U. S. C. $ 60108(a) and 49 C. F R. (190. 237,
Respondent is ordered to make the following revisions to its procedures. Respondent must—
I, Amend its procedures/plans with updated emergency response plan contact
information, The procedures, includmg contact information, for emergencies should
be updated at least once per year at intervals not exceeding 15 months (Notice Item
6),
2. Amend its process for verifying a supervisor's knowledge of emergency response
procedures to ensure there are adequate checks and balances (Notice Item 8); and
3. Ainend its process for verifying a supervisor's knowledge of corrosion control
procedures to ensure there are adequate checks and balances (Notice Item 11).



4 Within 30 days following receipt of this Order, submit the amended procedures to
the Director, Western Region, PHMSA.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by Respondent demonstrating good cause for an extension,
Failure to comply with this Order Directing Amendment may result in the assessment of civil
penalties of up to $100, 000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in the
referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States
WARNING ITEMS
As noted above, Warning Item 2 in the Notice is dropped The Notice did not propose a civil
penalty or corrective action for Notice Item 1 (49 C. F. R $ 195. 112(c)), Notice Item 3 (49 C. F. R.
$ 195. 214(b)), Notice Item 4 (49 C, F. R. $ 195, 266(b)), Notice Item 5b (49 C. F. R. $ 195. 402(a)),
Notice Item 5c (49 C. F. R. $ 195, 402(a)), Notice Item 9 (49 C. F. R. $ 195. 410(a)(2)(i-ii)), Notice
Item 10 (49 C. F. R. $ 195. 428(a)), and Notice Item 13 (49 C, F. R. $ 195. 579(c)) but warned
Respondent that it should take appropriate corrective action to correct the items as more fully
described in the Notice. Respondent presented information regarding Warning Items 2, 3, 9, and
10 in its Response and/or at the hearing and acknowledged the other Warning Items in the
Notice. With respect to Notice Items 3, 9, and 10—
Item 3 in the Notice warned that Respondent's welding procedures were missing in the pro]ect
documentation for Sugar Plant reroute and the 2000 line lowenng project. 49 C F. R
$ 195. 214(b) requires that each welding procedure must be recorded in detail, including the
results of the qualifying tests. This record must be retained and followed whenever the
procedure is used. Respondent disagreed with this Warmng Letter Item and provided
documentation of welding specifications and of one welding procedure. Documents presented
by Respondent did not provide any evidence indicating that the provided welding procedure was
used during the 2000 line-lowering project, After review of the available information, this is
considered a Warning Item and neither a civil penalty nor Compliance Order is attached to this
Notice Item.
Item 9 in the Notice warned that Respondent's ROW markers at several locations had phone
number lettering that was severely faded making reading of the phone number difficult
Additionally, several markers had the company name of Exxon and not ExxonMobil.
Respondent disputed this Warning Letter Item, stating that although phone numbers were faded
they could still be read. PHMSA photos taken during this inspection indicated that the phone
numbers on some ROW markers were not legible Respondent did not provide any other
evidence for compliance with 49 C. F R $ 195. 410(a)(2)(i-ii) After review of the available
information, this is considered a Warning Item and neither a civil penalty nor Compliance Order
is attached to this Notice Item
Item 10 in the Notice warned that Respondent only documents the data obtained during testing
and calibration of the pressure transmitters on its pipeline that assist in metering. It did not
document data obtained during the testing and calibration of other pressure transmitters on its



pipeline system. If a pressure transmitter is sending signals to another device or a SCADA
system that controls pressure, then that transmitter is considered to be a pressure control device
and as such must be tested and inspected and the data be recorded once each calendar year not to
exceed 15 months in accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 428(a), Respondent disagreed with this
Warning Letter Item, stating that pressure transmitters that send pressure and flow rate signals to
control logic devices or a remote operating control center are not pressure control equipment.
Since these devices are integral in the control of pressures for the Silvertip pipeline, PHMSA
does not agree with Respondent's mterpretation, After review of the available information, this
is considered a Warning Item and neither a civil penalty nor Compliance Order is attached to this
Notice Item.
With respect to all the Warning Items m the Notice, except for Notice Item 2, Respondent is
again warned that if PHMSA finds a violation for any of these items in a subsequent inspection,
enforcement action will be taken
Under 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of
this Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this
Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s), The filing of the petition
automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. All other terms of the Order,
including any required corrective action and amendment of procedures, remain in full effect
unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this
Final Order are effective on receipt.
JAN - 9 2007
Date Issued
e dore, Willke
A ti g Associate Administrator
Pipeline Safety

520055008_FinalOrder_08062009_text.pdf

AUG 6 2009
Mr. Gary W. Pruessing
President
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company
800 Bell Street
Room 623F
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF No. 5-2005-5008
Dear Mr. Pruessing:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the Notice and
terminates this enforcement proceeding, without prejudice, as a matter of administrative discretion.
Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, OPS
Candice Frembling Dykhuizen, Counsel, Law Department,
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company
CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 0390 0005 6162 5678



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. 5-2005-5008
)
Respondent. )
______________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From June 28 to July 1, 2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), inspected
the facilities and records of the ExxonMobil Pipeline Company (EMPCo or Respondent). EMPCo
operates a 69-mile hazardous liquid pipeline system that runs from the Silver Tip Station in Carbon
County, Montana, to the company’s refinery in Billings, Montana.
As a result of that inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to EMPCo, by
letter dated February 18, 2005, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Compliance Order,
Proposed Civil Penalty, and Notice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that EMPCo had violated Part 195 of the federal pipeline
safety regulations, assessing a civil penalty of $5,000 for one of the violations, and ordering the
company to take certain actions to correct one of the other violations. The Notice also ordered
Respondent to amend its written procedures.
By letter dated March 24, 2005 (Response), EMPCo responded to the Notice by disputing some of
the alleged violations, opposing the proposed compliance order and civil penalty, and requesting an
informal hearing. On January 9, 2007, after a hearing was held, PHMSA issued a Final Order in this
matter. As a courtesy to and at the request of EMPCo, however, PHMSA later withdrew the Final
Order and held a new hearing on April 12, 2007.
The Director has informed PHMSA that a re-inspection of EMPCo’s hazardous liquid pipeline
system occurred from July 27 to 30, 2009.
WITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATIONS
Citing the unusual procedural history of this case and the imminent re-inspection of EMPCo’s
facilities, the Director has recommended that these proceedings be terminated and that the Items in
this Notice be addressed on re-inspection. Accordingly, upon consideration of his recommendation
and the unique circumstances of this case, I hereby withdraw the February 2005 Notice without
prejudice as a matter of administrative discretion.1
This case is now closed.
1 Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985).



2
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of
this Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent’s receipt of this
Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The terms of the order, including
any required corrective action and amendment of procedures, shall remain in full force and effect
unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be effective upon receipt.
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

520055008_Withdrawal of Final Order_01182007.pdf

U.S. Department
of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
JAN 1 ?
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
BY FEDERAL EXPRESS
Candice Frembling Dykhuizen
Counsel
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company
800 Bell Street, Ste. PL-EMB-707F
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF No. 5-2005-5008
Dear Ms. Dykhuizen:
Pursuant to your request, this withdraws the Final Order in the above referenced case, and
assigns a Presiding Official for a hearing de novo due to the departure of the attorney who acted
as the Presiding Official in the previous hearing.
In accordance with 49 C.F.R. 5 190.21 1, an informal hearing will be held regarding the Notice of
Probable Violation, Proposed Compliance Order, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Notice of
Amendment issued to ExxonMobil on February 18,2005. Denise Desautels, Esq. is the assigned
Presiding Official in the case. Please contact her at (202) 366-9085 to schedule a hearing.
Sincerely,
U o s e p h Ahern
Deputy Chief Counsel
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Richard A. Rabinow
President
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company
800 Bell St.
Houston, TX 77002



Mr. Jimmy James, Operations Manag er-Northern Region
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company
3225 Gallows Road
Fairfax, VA 22037
Mr. Chris Hoidal, P.E., Director Western Region, PHMSA
Ms. Denise Desautels, Presiding Official
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 34070