{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520071007","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":"2007-06-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.905(a), 192.911, 192.935(a), 192.945(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520071007.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520071007.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520071007","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520071007","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving CHEVRON PIPE LINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.905(a),  192.911,  192.935(a),  192.945(a). The case was opened on 2007-06-11 and is reported as closed as of 2009-11-09. Proposed civil penalty: $60,000. Assessed civil penalty: $60,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520071007_Final Order_06152009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520071007/520071007_Final%20Order_06152009.pdf\n\n520071007_final order_06152009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520071007/520071007_final%20order_06152009_text.pdf\n\n520071007_FinalOrder_6152009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520071007/520071007_FinalOrder_6152009_text.pdf\n\n520071007_NOPV letter_06112007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520071007/520071007_NOPV%20letter_06112007.pdf\n\n520071007_nopv letter_06112007_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520071007/520071007_nopv%20letter_06112007_text.pdf\n\n520071007_operator response_01272009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520071007/520071007_operator%20response_01272009.pdf\n\n520071007_FinalOrder_6152009_text.pdf\n\nJUN 15 2009\nMs. Rebecca B. Roberts\nPresident\nChevron Pipe Line Company\n4800 Fournace Place\nBellaire, TX 77401\nRe: CPF No. 5-2007-1007\nDear Ms. Roberts:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation,\nspecifies actions that need to be taken by Chevron to comply with the pipeline safety regulations,\nand assesses a civil penalty. I acknowledge receipt of and accept your wire transfer for $60,000\nas payment in full of the civil penalty assessed in the Final Order. When the terms of the\ncompliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director, Western Region, Office\nof Pipeline Safety, this enforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of the Final Order\nconstitutes 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\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0046 9617]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nChevron Pipe Line Company, ) CPF No. 5-2007-1007\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn September 11 –14 and 25 – 29, 2006, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative\nof the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of\nPipeline Safety (OPS), inspected the integrity management program (IMP) of Chevron\nPipe Line Company (Chevron or Respondent) at its corporate offices in Bellaire, Texas.\nChevron presently operates natural gas transmission pipelines in Alabama, Mississippi,\nLouisiana, Texas, and California.\nFollowing that inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nChevron, by letter dated June 11, 2007, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. §\n190.207, the Notice alleged that Chevron had violated several pipeline safety regulations,\n49 C.F.R. §§ 192.905, 192.911, 192.935 and 192.945. The Notice then proposed that\nChevron be assessed a civil penalty of $60,000, and ordered to undertake certain\ncorrective actions for those alleged violations.\nChevron responded to the Notice by letter dated August 10, 2007 (Response).\nstating that it “]wa]s not contesting the concerns raised by PHMSA,\n” Chevron described\nin its Response the steps that it planned to take to address each of the allegations. In a\nfollow-up letter, dated September 1, 2008, Chevron updated the Director on the status of\nthose correction actions.\n1 After\nRespondent did not request a hearing but submitted a wire transfer in the amount of the\nproposed penalty ($60,000), thereby waiving any further right to respond and authorizing\nthe entry of this Final Order.\n1 On July 3, 2007, the Director granted Chevron’s request for additional time to file its Response.\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItems 1A and 1B of the Notice alleged that Chevron violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.905(a), which states, in relevant part:\n§ 192.905 How does an operator identify a high consequence area?\n(a) General. To determine which segments of an operator’s\ntransmission pipeline system are covered by this subpart, an operator\nmust identify the high consequence areas. An operator must use method\n(1) or (2) from the definition in § 192.903 to identify a high consequence\narea. An operator may apply one method to its entire pipeline system, or\nan operator may apply one method to individual portions of the pipeline\nsystem. An operator must describe in its integrity management program\nwhich method it is applying to each portion of the operator’s pipeline\nsystem. The description must include the potential impact radius when\nutilized to establish a high consequence area (See appendix E.I. for\nguidance on identifying high consequence areas.)\nTurning first to Item 1A, the Notice alleged that Chevron’s Geographic Information\nSystem (GIS) contained inaccurate information on the high consequence areas (HCA or\nHCAs) and covered segments of its pipeline. See 49 C.F.R. § 192.903 (defining HCA\nand covered segment). The Notice further alleged that those inaccuracies were the\nproduct of Chevron’s failure to follow its own procedures for inputting pipeline data from\nsource documents. Finally, the Notice alleged that Chevron had misapplied “method (1)”\nin evaluating its pipeline system, further contributing to its failure to properly identify all\nof its HCAs. As none of these allegations is contested, I find that Chevron violated §\n192.905(a) by failing to have accurate information on the HCAs and covered segments of\nits pipeline in its GIS, to follow its own procedures for inputting pipeline data from\nsource documents, and to properly apply method 1 in identifying the HCAs of its\npipeline.\nWith respect to Item 1B, the Notice alleged that Chevron had no documents showing that\ncertain structures, selected by the OPS inspector upon review of aerial photographs, had\nreceived an identified-site determination. 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.903, 192.905(b). The Notice\nfurther alleged that Chevron had not determined if certain buildings, already classified as\nidentified sites, met the Class-3-location criteria. 49 C.F.R. § 192.5. These allegations\nare also not contested; therefore, I find that Chevron violated § 192.905(a) by failing to\nevaluate all potential identified sites and to determine whether certain buildings, already\nclassified as identified sites, met the Class-3-location criteria.\nItem 2A of the Notice alleged that Chevron violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.935(a), which states,\nin relevant part:\n§ 192.935 What additional preventive and mitigative measures must an\noperator take?\n(a) General requirements. An operator must take additional\nmeasures beyond those already required by Part 192 to prevent a\npipeline failure and to mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure\n\n\n\n3\nin a high consequence area. An operator must base the additional\nmeasures on the threats the operator has identified to each pipeline\nsegment. (See § 192.917) An operator must conduct, in accordance\nwith one of the risk assessment approaches in ASME/ANSI B31.8S\n(incorporated by reference, see § 192.7), section 5, a risk analysis of its\npipeline to identify additional measures to protect the high\nconsequence area and enhance public safety. Such additional\nmeasures include, but are not limited to, installing Automatic Shut-off\nValves or Remote Control Valves, installing computerized monitoring\nand leak detection systems, replacing pipe segments with pipe of\nheavier wall thickness, providing additional training to personnel on\nresponse procedures, conducting drills with local emergency\nresponders and implementing additional inspection and maintenance\nprograms.\nThe Notice alleged that Chevron had violated § 192.935(a) by not adequately identifying\nthe additional measures needed to prevent and mitigate the effects of a pipeline failure in\nan HCA. The Notice further alleged that while Chevron had identified some of the\nrequired preventive and mitigative measures (PMMs)—namely, those designed to\nprevent and mitigate mechanical damage on the so-called Chalmette line—the need for\nthose PMMs was not documented in its computerized tracking system. Finally, the\nNotice alleged that Chevron did not know whether the Chalmette line PMMs had ever\nbeen approved or implemented. Having not contested any of these allegations, and for\nthe reasons described more fully in Item 2A of the Notice, I find that Chevron violated 49\nC.F.R. § 192.935(a) by failing to identify and implement the additional measures needed\nto prevent and mitigate a pipeline failure in an HCA.\nItem 3A of the Notice alleged that Chevron violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911(l), which states,\nin relevant part:\n§ 192.911 What are the elements of an integrity management program?\nAn operator’s initial integrity management program begins with a\nframework (see § 192.907) and evolves into a more detailed and\ncomprehensive integrity management program, as information is gained\nand incorporated into the program. An operator must make continual\nimprovements to its program. The initial program framework and\nsubsequent program must, at minimum, contain the following elements.\n(When indicated, refer to ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by\nreference, see § 192.7) for more detailed information on the listed\nelement.)\n. . .\n(l) A quality assurance process as outlined in ASME/ANSI B31.8S,\nsection 12.\nThe Notice alleged that Chevron had violated § 192.911(l) by using an IMP that did not\ninclude a means for monitoring the effectiveness of, or need for improvements in, its\nquality assurance process. The Notice cited Chevron’s failure to correct deficiencies that\nhad been discovered during prior independent audits. On the basis of these undisputed\n\n\n\n4\nallegations, I find that Chevron violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911(l) by using an IMP that did\nnot include a means for monitoring the effectiveness of, or need for improvements in, its\nquality assurance process, as described more thoroughly in Item 3A of the Notice.\nFinally, Item 4A of the Notice alleged that Chevron violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.945(a),\nwhich states, in relevant part:\n§ 192.945 What methods must an operator use to measure program\neffectiveness?\n(a) General. An operator must include in its integrity\nmanagement program methods to measure, on a semi-annual basis,\nwhether the program is effective in assessing and evaluating the integrity\nof each covered pipeline segment and in protecting the high consequence\nareas. These measures must include the four overall performance\nmeasures specified in ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference,\nsee § 192.7), section 9.4, and the specific measures for each identified\nthreat specified in ASME/ANSI B31.8s, Appendix A. An operator must\nsubmit the four overall performance measures, by electronic or other\nmeans, on a semi-annual frequency to OPS in accordance with § 192.951.\nAn operator must submit its first report on overall performance measures\nby August 31, 2004. Thereafter, the performance measures must be\ncomplete through June 30 and December 31 of each year and must be\nsubmitted within 2 months after those dates.\nThe Notice alleged that Chevron had violated § 192.945(a) by not conducting a semi-\nannual evaluation of its IMP to determine its effectiveness in assessing the integrity of\ncovered pipeline segments and in protecting HCAs.\nfind that Chevron violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.945(a) by not conducting a semi-annual IMP\nevaluation to determine its effectiveness in assessing the integrity of covered pipeline\nsegments and in protecting HCAs.\n2 As that allegation is uncontested, I\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent\nenforcement action taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the\ncivil penalty, I consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of\nthe violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s\nculpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s ability to pay\nthe penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline\nsafety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the\nviolation without any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters\nas justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $ 60,000 for\n2 The Notice further alleged that Chevron’s IMP Manual did not provide detailed information on how the\nsemi-annual performance measurements, overall and threat specific, would be tracked and analyzed.\n\n\n\n5\nChevron’s violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.905, 192.911,192.935 and 192.945. Having\nreviewed the record in this case and considered the applicable assessment criteria, I find\nthat amount is justified.\nFirst, with regard to the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violations, I find that\nChevron’s failure to properly identify the HCAs and covered segments of its pipeline,\nand to implement additional PMMs in those sections identified as HCAs, created a\ncredible threat to public safety.\nAs the OPS inspector opined in his report, an HCA or covered segment is subject to more\nstringent requirements under the current regulations. These include, e.g., the\nperformance of additional assessments, the implementation of extra PMMs, and the\nconduct of more routine repairs.\nHowever, when an operator does not properly identify an HCA or covered segment, these\nsegments will not receive the additional safety-related measures necessary to protect\ncritical areas. The integrity of Chevron’s pipeline and the safety of the public both suffer\nas a result.\nLikewise, the regulations require additional PMMs in HCAs to reduce the likelihood and\ndetrimental impact of a pipeline failure in circumstances where the public is most\nvulnerable. But Chevron’s failure to implement additional PMMs could have produced\nthe opposite effect, so that a such failure could be more likely, and that the detrimental\nimpact of that event could be more severe.\nSecond, I agree with the OPS inspector, as evidenced in his report, that Chevron bears\nfull culpability for each of these violations, and that it did not make any good faith\nattempts to comply with the underlying regulations.\nFinally, Chevron has never argued that the proposed civil penalty amount should be\nreduced. To the contrary, it has already paid that amount in full and without objection.\nAccordingly, I assess Chevron a civil penalty of $60,000, which amount has already been\npaid by Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Items 1A, 1B, 2A, 3A, and 4A\nfor violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who\nengages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is\nrequired to comply with the applicable safety standards established under Chapter 601.\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent\nis ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety\nregulations applicable to its operations.\n1. In regard to Item Number 1A of the Notice, Respondent must conduct a new\nstudy of all pipeline segments and determine if an HCA exists or not using\n\n\n\n6\nAs-Built Drawings to indicate correct stationing to locate any HCAs.\nFurthermore, Respondent must utilize its QA/QC program to ensure that\ncorrect information is transferred into its GIS system, and it must document\nthese changes in its IMP.\n2. In regard to Item Number 1B of the Notice, Respondent must, in conjunction\nwith Item 1A above, conduct a survey of all potential identified sites along all\nof its pipeline systems and document the HCA boundary changes.\nFurthermore, Respondent must document all contact information obtained\nfrom these surveys, including third party contact name, phone number, and\nnumber of people at a site, and use this information to adjust HCA and\nclassification designation along the pipeline system. A complete list of any\nadjustments made to HCAs or pipeline classification as a result of this survey\nor Item 1 above must be reported to PHMSA’s Western Region Director at the\nconclusion of the survey’s data being incorporated into Chevron’s Gas IMP.\nThis must be completed within six (6) months of the receipt of the final order.\n3. In regard to Item Number 2A of the Notice, Respondent must complete a\npreventive and mitigative (P&M) evaluation for all its pipeline systems within\nsix (6) months from receipt of the final order. Furthermore, Respondent must\nprovide a list of all P&M measures considered and planned for\nimplementation at the end of this six (6) month window. Respondent must\nhave all P&M activities chosen for implementation completed or in active use\nwithin one (1) year from the receipt of this final order.\n4. In regard to Item Number 3A of the Notice, Respondent’s IM procedures must\nspecify that all appropriately identified corrective actions must be\nimplemented within one year of the corrective actions being identified. On an\nannual basis for the next five (5) years from the date of receipt of this Final\nOrder, but no later than January 31 of each calendar year, Respondent must\nalso provide PHMSA’s Western Region Director with a complete list of the\ncorrective actions it has identified by any internal or external processes or\nother means, a statement indicating whether those corrective actions were or\nwere not implemented, and an explanation of the steps taken to address those\ncorrective actions.\n5. In regard to Item Number 4A of the Notice, Respondent must begin to\nmeasure and evaluate IMP performance semi-annually using threat-specific\nmetrics as required by § 192.945(a). Respondent must implement this\nperformance measurement requirement within six (6) months from the receipt\nof this final order. Furthermore, every six months for the next four (4) years\nfrom the date of receipt of this Order, Respondent must provide this\nperformance measurement matrix for each of the preceding four years to\nPHMSA’s Western Region Director.\n6. Respondent must maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Chris\nHoidal, Director, Western Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\n\n\n\n7\nAdministration, 12300 West Dakota Avenue, Suite 110, Lakewood, Colorado\n80228. Costs must be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total\ncost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline\ninfrastructure.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items\nupon a written request timely submitted by the Respondent demonstrating good cause for\nan extension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil\npenalties not to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues\nor in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United\nStates.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be effective upon receipt.\n___________________________________ __________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n520071007_final order_06152009_text.pdf\n\nU S Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Ave, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\ndUN 15 29'\nMs. Rebecca B. Roberts\nPresident\nChevron Pipe Line Company\n4800 Fournace Place\nBellaire, TX 77401\nRe: CPF No. 5-2007-1007\nDear Ms. Roberts:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case It makes findings of violation,\nspecifies actions that need to be taken by Chevron to comply with the pipeline safety regulations,\nand assesses a civil penalty. I acknowledge receipt of and accept your wire transfer for $60, 000\nas payment in full of the civil penalty assessed in the Final Order. When the terms of the\ncompliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director, Western Region, Office\nof Pipeline Safety, this enforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of the Final Order\nconstitutes service of that document under 49 C. F. R. ( 190. 5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJef rey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED [7005 1160 0001 0046 9617]\n\n\n\nU. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\nIn the Matter of\nChevron Pipe Line Company,\nRespondent.\nCPF No. 5-2007-1007\nFINAL ORDER\nOn September 11 — 14 and 25 — 29, 2006, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. $ 60117, a representative\nof the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of\nPipeline Safety (OPS), inspected the integrity management program (IMP) of Chevron\nPipe Line Company (Chevron or Respondent) at its corporate offices in Bellaire, Texas.\nChevron presently operates natural gas transmission pipelines in Alabama, Mississippi,\nLouisiana, Texas, and California.\nFollowing that inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nChevron, by letter dated June 11, 2007, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C. F. R. $\n190. 207, the Notice alleged that Chevron had violated several pipeline safety regulations,\n49 C. F. R. $$ 192. 905, 192. 911, 192. 935 and 192. 945 The Notice then proposed that\nChevron be assessed a civil penalty of $60, 000, and ordered to undertake certain\ncorrective actions for those alleged violations.\nChevron responded to the Notice by letter dated August 10, 2007 (Response). ' After\nstating that it \"]wa]s not contesting the concerns raised by PHMSA, \" Chevron described\nin its Response the steps that it planned to take to address each of the allegations. In a\nfollow-up letter, dated September 1, 2008, Chevron updated the Director on the status of\nthose correction actions.\nRespondent did not request a hearing but submitted a wire transfer in the amount of the\nproposed penalty ($60, 000), thereby waiving any further right to respond and authorizing\nthe entry of this Final Order.\n' On July 3, 2007, the Director granted Chevron's request for additional time to file its Response\n\n\n\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItems 1A and 1B of the Notice alleged that Chevron violated 49 C. F. R.\n) 192. 905(a), which states, in relevant part\ng 192. 905 How does an operator identify a high consequence area?\n(a) General To determine which segments of an operator's\ntransmission pipeline system are covered by this subpart, an operator\nmust identify the high consequence areas. An operator must use method\n(1) or (2) from the definition in $ 192. 903 to identify a high consequence\narea. An operator may apply one method to its entire pipeline system, or\nan operator may apply one method to individual portions of the pipeline\nsystem. An operator must describe in its integrity management program\nwhich method it is applying to each portion of the operator's pipehne\nsystem. The description must include the potential impact radius when\nutilized to establish a high consequence area (See appendix E. I. for\nguidance on identifying high consequence areas. )\nTurnmg first to Item 1A, the Notice alleged that Chevron's Geographic Information\nSystem (GIS) contained inaccurate information on the high consequence areas (HCA or\nHCAs) and covered segments of its pipeline. See 49 C F, R. $ 192. 903 (defining HCA\nand covered segment). The Notice further alleged that those inaccuracies were the\nproduct of Chevron's failure to follow its own procedures for inputting pipeline data from\nsource documents. Finally, the Notice alleged that Chevron had misapplied \"method (1)\"\nin evaluating its pipeline system, further contributing to its failure to properly identify all\nof its HCAs. As none of these allegations is contested, I find that Chevron violated $\n192 905(a) by failing to have accurate information on the HCAs and covered segments of\nits pipeline in its GIS, to follow its own procedures for inputting pipeline data from\nsource documents, and to properly apply method 1 in identifying the HCAs of its\npipeline.\nWith respect to Item 1B, the Notice alleged that Chevron had no documents showing that\ncertain structures, selected by the OPS inspector upon review of aerial photographs, had\nreceived an identified-site determination, 49 C. F. R. $$ 192. 903, 192 905(b). The Notice\nfurther alleged that Chevron had not determined if certain buildings, already classified as\nidentified sites, met the Class-3-location criteria. 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 5. These allegations\nare also not contested; therefore, I find that Chevron violated ) 192. 905(a) by failing to\nevaluate all potential identified sites and to determine whether certain buildings, already\nclassified as identified sites, met the Class-3-location criteria.\nItem 2A of the Notice alleged that Chevron violated 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 935(a), which states,\nin relevant part:\ng 192. 935 What additional preventive and mitigative measures must an\noperator take?\n(a) General requirements An operator must take additional\nmeasures beyond those already required by Part 192 to prevent a\npipeline failure and to mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure\n\n\n\nin a high consequence area. An operator must base the additional\nmeasures on the threats the operator has identified to each pipeline\nsegment. (See $ 192. 917) An operator must conduct, in accordance\nwith one of the risk assessment approaches in ASME/ANSI B31. 8S\n(incorporated by reference, see ) 192. 7), section 5, a risk analysis of its\npipeline to identify additional measures to protect the high\nconsequence area and enhance public safety. Such additional\nmeasures include, but are not limited to, installing Automatic Shut-off\nValves or Remote Control Valves, installing computerized monitoring\nand leak detection systems, replacing pipe segments with pipe of\nheavier wall thickness, providing additional training to personnel on\nresponse procedures, conducting drills with local emergency\nresponders and implementing additional inspection and maintenance\nprograms.\nThe Notice alleged that Chevron had violated ) 192. 935(a) by not adequately identifying\nthe additional measures needed to prevent and mitigate the effects of a pipeline failure in\nan HCA. The Notice further alleged that while Chevron had identified some of the\nrequired preventive and mitigative measures (PMMs) — namely, those designed to\nprevent and mitigate mechanical damage on the so-called Chalmette line — the need for\nthose PMMs was not documented m its computerized tracking system, Finally, the\nNotice alleged that Chevron did not know whether the Chalmette line PMMs had ever\nbeen approved or implemented. Having not contested any of these allegations, and for\nthe reasons described more fully in Item 2A of the Notice, I find that Chevron violated 49\nC. F. R. ) 192. 935(a) by failing to identify and implement the additional measures needed\nto prevent and mitigate a pipeline failure in an HCA.\nItem 3A of the Notice alleged that Chevron violated 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 911(1), which states,\nin relevant part:\ng 192. 911 What are the elements of an integrity management program?\nAn operator's initial integrity management program begins with a\nframework (see $ 192. 907) and evolves into a more detailed and\ncomprehensive integrity management program, as information is gained\nand incorporated into the program. An operator must make continual\nimprovements to its program. The initial program framework and\nsubsequent program must, at minimum, contain the following elements.\n(When indicated, refer to ASME/ANSI B31. 8S (incorporated by\nreference, see $ 192. 7) for more detailed information on the listed\nelement. )\n(I) A quality assurance process as outlined m ASME/ANSI B31. 8S,\nsection 12.\nThe Notice alleged that Chevron had violated ) 192. 911(l) by using an IMP that did not\ninclude a means for monitoring the effectiveness of, or need for improvements in, its\nquality assurance process. The Notice cited Chevron's failure to correct deficiencies that\nhad been discovered during prior independent audits. On the basis of these undisputed\n\n\n\nallegations, I find that Chevron violated 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 911(1) by using an IMP that did\nnot include a means for monitoring the effectiveness of, or need for improvements in, its\nquality assurance process, as described more thoroughly in Item 3A of the Notice.\nFinally, Item 4A of the Notice alleged that Chevron violated 49 C, F. R. $ 192. 945(a),\nwhich states, in relevant part:\ng 192. 945 What methods must an operator use to measure program\neffectiveness?\n(a) General An operator must include in its integrity\nmanagement program methods to measure, on a semi-annual basis,\nwhether the program is effective in assessing and evaluating the integrity\nof each covered pipeline segment and in protectmg the high consequence\nareas. These measures must include the four overall performance\nmeasures specified in ASME/ANSI B31. 8S (incorporated by reference,\nsee $ 192. 7), section 9. 4, and the specific measures for each identified\nthreat specified in ASME/ANSI B31. 8s, Appendix A. An operator must\nsubmit the four overall performance measures, by electronic or other\nmeans, on a semi-annual frequency to OPS in accordance with $ 192. 951.\nAn operator must submit its first report on overall performance measures\nby August 31, 2004. Thereafter, the performance measures must be\ncomplete through June 30 and December 31 of each year and must be\nsubmitted within 2 months after those dates.\nThe Notice alleged that Chevron had violated $ 192. 945(a) by not conducting a semi-\nannual evaluation of its IMP to determine its effectiveness in assessing the integrity of\ncovered pipeline segments and in protecting HCAs. As that allegation is uncontested, I\nfind that Chevron violated 49 C. F. R ( 192. 945(a) by not conducting a semi-annual IMP\nevaluation to determine its effectiveness in assessing the integrity of covered pipeline\nsegments and in protecting HCAs.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent\nenforcement action taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\n49 U. S. C. $ 60122 and 49 C. F, R. $ 190. 225 require that, in determining the amount of the\ncivil penalty, I consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of\nthe violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent's\nculpability; the history of Respondent's prior offenses; the Respondent's ability to pay\nthe penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness, and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline\nsafety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the\nviolation without any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters\nas justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $60, 000 for\n' The Notice further alleged that Chevron's IMP Manual did not provide detailed mformation on how the\nsemi-annual performance measurements, overall and threat specific, would be tracked and analyzed\n\n\n\nChevron's violations of 49 C F. R. $$ 192. 905, 192. 911, 192. 935 and 192. 945. Having\nreviewed the record in this case and considered the applicable assessment criteria, I find\nthat amount is justified.\nFirst, with regard to the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violations, I find that\nChevron's failure to properly identify the HCAs and covered segments of its pipeline,\nand to implement additional PMMs in those sections identified as HCAs, created a\ncredible threat to public safety.\nAs the OPS inspector opined in his report, an HCA or covered segment is subject to more\nstringent requirements under the current regulations. These include, e. g. ,\nthe\nperformance of additional assessments, the implementation of extra PMMs, and the\nconduct of more routine repairs.\nHowever, when an operator does not properly identify an HCA or covered segment, these\nsegments will not receive the additional safety-related measures necessary to protect\ncritical areas. The integrity of Chevron's pipeline and the safety of the public both suffer\nas a result.\nLikewise, the regulations require additional PMMs m HCAs to reduce the likelihood and\ndetrimental impact of a pipeline failure in circumstances where the public is most\nvulnerable. But Chevron's failure to implement additional PMMs could have produced\nthe opposite effect, so that a such failure could be more likely, and that the detrimental\nimpact of that event could be more severe.\nSecond, I agree with the OPS inspector, as evidenced in his report, that Chevron bears\nfull culpability for each of these violations, and that it did not make any good faith\nattempts to comply with the underlying regulations,\nFinally, Chevron has never argued that the proposed civil penalty amount should be\nreduced. To the contrary, it has already paid that amount in full and without objection.\nAccordingly, I assess Chevron a civil penalty of $60, 000, which amount has already been\npaid by Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Items 1A, 1B, 2A, 3A, and 4A\nfor violations of 49 C. F. R. Part 192. Under 49 U. S. C. $ 60118(a), each person who\nengages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is\nrequired to comply with the applicable safety standards established under Chapter 601.\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U. S. C. $ 60118(b) and 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 217, Respondent\nis ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety\nregulations applicable to its operations.\n1, In regard to Item Number 1A of the Notice, Respondent must conduct a new\nstudy of all pipeline segments and determine if an HCA exists or not using\n\n\n\nAs-Built Drawings to indicate correct stationing to locate any HCAs.\nFurthermore, Respondent must utilize its QA/QC program to ensure that\ncorrect information is transferred into its GIS system, and it must document\nthese changes in its IMP.\n2. In regard to Item Number 1B of the Notice, Respondent must, in conjunction\nwith Item 1A above, conduct a survey of all potential identified sites along all\nof its pipeline systems and document the HCA boundary changes.\nFurthermore, Respondent must document all contact information obtained\nfrom these surveys, including third party contact name, phone number, and\nnumber of people at a site, and use this information to adjust HCA and\nclassification designation along the pipeline system. A complete list of any\nadjustments made to HCAs or pipeline classification as a result of this survey\nor Item 1 above must be reported to PHMSA's Western Region Director at the\nconclusion of the survey's data being incorporated into Chevron's Gas IMP.\nThis must be completed within six (6) months of the receipt of the final order.\n3. In regard to Item Number 2A of the Notice, Respondent must complete a\npreventive and mitigative (PkM) evaluation for all its pipeline systems within\nsix (6) months from receipt of the final order. Furthermore, Respondent must\nprovide a list of all P&M measures considered and planned for\nimplementation at the end of this six (6) month window. Respondent must\nhave all PAM activities chosen for implementation completed or in active use\nwithin one (1) year from the receipt of this final order.\n4. In regard to Item Number 3A of the Notice, Respondent's IM procedures must\nspecify that all appropriately identified corrective actions must be\nimplemented within one year of the corrective actions being identified. On an\nannual basis for the next five (5) years from the date of receipt of this Final\nOrder, but no later than January 31 of each calendar year, Respondent must\nalso provide PHMSA's Western Region Director with a complete list of the\ncorrective actions it has identified by any internal or external processes or\nother means, a statement indicating whether those corrective actions were or\nwere not implemented, and an explanation of the steps taken to address those\ncorrective actions\n5. In regard to Item Number 4A of the Notice, Respondent must begin to\nmeasure and evaluate IMP performance semi-annually using threat-specific\nmetrics as required by $ 192. 945(a). Respondent must implement this\nperformance measurement requirement within six (6) months from the receipt\nof this final order. Furthermore, every six months for the next four (4) years\nfrom the date of receipt of this Order, Respondent must provide this\nperformance measurement matrix for each of the preceding four years to\nPHMSA's Western Region Director.\n6. Respondent must maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Chris\nHoidal, Director, Western Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\n\n\n\nHoidal, Director, Western Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration, 12300 West Dakota Avenue, Suite 110, Lakewood, Colorado\n80228. Costs must be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total\ncost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline\ninfrastructure.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items\nupon a written request timely submitted by the Respondent demonstrating good cause for\nan extension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil\npenalties not to exceed $100, 000 for each violation for each day the violation continues\nor in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United\nStates.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be effective upon receipt.\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nDate Issued","truncated":false,"body_characters":38774}