{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520105028","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":"2010-11-01","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.250, 195.402, 195.452(i)(3), 195.575(e).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520105028.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520105028.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520105028","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520105028","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving CHEVRON PIPE LINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.250,  195.402,  195.452(i)(3),  195.575(e). The case was opened on 2010-11-01 and is reported as closed as of 2012-02-23. Proposed civil penalty: $423,600. Assessed civil penalty: $423,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520105028_Closure Letter_02232012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105028/520105028_Closure%20Letter_02232012.pdf\n\n520105028_Closure Letter_02232012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105028/520105028_Closure%20Letter_02232012_text.pdf\n\n520105028_FinalOrder_02172011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105028/520105028_FinalOrder_02172011.pdf\n\n520105028_FinalOrder_02172011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105028/520105028_FinalOrder_02172011_text.pdf\n\n520105028_NOPV PCP PCO_11012010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105028/520105028_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_11012010.pdf\n\n520105028_NOPV PCP PCO_11012010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105028/520105028_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_11012010_text.pdf\n\n520105028_operator_response_to_notice_12022010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105028/520105028_operator_response_to_notice_12022010.pdf\n\n520105028_Closure Letter_02232012_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nFebruary 23, 2012\nMr. James Barnum\nVP, Pipeline Services and Standards\nChevron Pipe Line Company\n4800 Fournace Place\nBellaire, TX 77401-2324\nCPF 5-2010-5028\nDear Mr. Barnum:\nOn February 17, 2011, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA) issued to Chevron Pipe Line Company (CPL) a Final Order in the above-\nreferenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order and closed the portion of the\nenforcement case associated with the Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of\nthe documentation CPL provided, by letters dated February 15, 2012 and February 20,\n2012, it has been determined that you have complied with the Compliance Order portion\nof this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to\nthe matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Gary Saenz via e-mailed attachment\nPHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 J. Stahoviak\n\n520105028_NOPV PCP PCO_11012010_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nNovember 1, 2010\nMs. Rebecca B. Roberts\nPresident\nChevron Pipe Line Company\n4800 Fournace Place\nBellaire, TX 77401-2324\nCPF 5-2010-5028\nDear Ms. Roberts:\nOn June 12, 2010, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) was\nnotified of a release that occurred on a Chevron Pipe Line Company (Chevron) pipeline near\nSalt Lake City, Utah. The release began the previous night and resulted in approximately 800\nbarrels of crude oil being released into the ground and nearby Red Butte Creek where the oil\nflowed westwards into Liberty Park Pond. On June 12, 2010, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49\nUnited States Code, PHMSA initiated an investigation into the causes of that release.\nAs a result of the investigation, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and\nthe probable violations are:\n1. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a\nmanual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance\nactivities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies….\n\n\n\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a)\nof this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during\nmaintenance and normal operations:\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with\neach of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.\nChevron had a procedure for patrolling its pipeline rights-of-way (ROWs), which is required\nby 49 C.F.R. §195.412, detailed in Procedure Number MIP-205 of its Operations and\nMaintenance Manual, Maintenance and Inspection Procedural Manual (MIP). Chevron did not\nimplement the inspection procedures in MIP-205 for the conditions that were on the ROW in\nthe vicinity of where the pipeline failure occurred.\nChevron had chosen to use aerial patrols as the method for inspecting the surface conditions on\nor adjacent to the ROW for Crude Oil #2 Pipeline. The ROW had areas of excessive\novergrowth and nearby manmade structures at the time of the OPS failure investigation. In\naddition, there was a pipeline marker buried in the bushes over Chevron’s crude line #1.\nAccording to MIP-205, inspections in such areas should have been done by land vehicle or on\nfoot, and according to MIP-205 Section 5.4, the ROW overgrowth and the condition of the\npipeline marker sign should have been noted during the inspections. Heavy vegetation,\nnumerous structures, and narrow canyons in this pipeline segment indicate that aerial patrols\ncould not be used to adequately assess the surface conditions on or adjacent to the pipeline\nright-of-way.\nChevron had procedures for controlling corrosion of their pipeline systems detailed in their\nCore Liquids Pipeline Operations and Maintenance Manual in Section 10. Section 10.3.6\nrequired grounding devices on underground pipelines in the vicinity of electrical isolation\nequipment locations to mitigate the risk of fault currents, lightning, and electrical arcing from\nnegatively impacting the integrity of the pipeline. No such protective or mitigative measures\nwere taken despite the location of an electrical substation above Crude Lines #1 and #2.\n2. §195.575 Which facilities must I electrically isolate and what inspections, tests,\nand safeguards are required?\n(e) If a pipeline is in close proximity to electrical transmission tower footings,\nground cables, or counterpoise, or in other areas where it is reasonable to foresee\nfault currents or an unusual risk of lightning, you must protect the pipeline\nagainst damage from fault currents or lightning and take protective measures at\ninsulating devices.\nHigh-voltage electric transmission lines, an aboveground to belowground electric transfer\nstation, and a security fence were located on the ROW at the point where Chevron’s Crude Oil\n#2 Pipeline failed on June 11, 2010. OPS’s accident investigation indicates that a discharge of\nelectric current onto the pipeline was the probable cause of that failure. Chevron did not\nprotect that portion of the Crude Oil #2 Pipeline against damage from fault currents that could\nbe imparted from the nearby transfer station, including all structures tied into that station’s\n2\n\n\n\ngrounding grid, and did not take protective measures at insulating devices. This lack of\nprotection resulted in a hole being created in the pipeline due to electrical arcing from the\nfacility fence pole.\n3. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(i) What preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take to protect the\nhigh consequence area?\n(3) Leak detection. An operator must have a means to detect leaks on its pipeline\nsystem. An operator must evaluate the capability of its leak detection means and\nmodify, as necessary, to protect the high consequence area. An operator's\nevaluation must, at least, consider, the following factors – length and size of the\npipeline, type of product carried, the pipeline's proximity to the high consequence\narea, the swiftness of leak detection, location of nearest response personnel, leak\nhistory, and risk assessment results.\nChevron did not have an adequate means to detect leaks on the Crude Oil #2 Pipeline at the\ntime of the June 11, 2010, failure. OPS’s accident investigation indicates that over ten (10)\nhours elapsed between the time of the release and Chevron’s notification of the release by the\nlocal fire department at 7:42am on June 12th. Chevron controllers did not detect the leak and\nnotification by the fire department was the first definitive knowledge Chevron had that a spill\nhad occurred. The release occurred in a high-consequence area and led to the spill of\napproximately 800 barrels of crude oil into the Red Butte Creek and surrounding soils.\nOPS’s accident investigation further indicates that Chevron knew that the elevation profile and\noperational characteristics of the Crude Oil #2 pipeline rendered its chosen method of leak\ndetection inadequate with respect to the swiftness of leak detection. Chevron’s August 13,\n2010, response to PHMSA’s request for specific information about their leak detection\ncapabilities on their Crude Line #2 states that they had performed a leak detection capability\nevaluation study in 2007. That report concluded that they needed enhancements to their leak\ndetection capabilities on this line, but Chevron did not implement the recommended\nimprovements until after the release.\n4. §195.250 Clearance between pipe and underground structures.\nAny pipe installed underground must have at least 12 inches (305 millimeters) of\nclearance between the outside of the pipe and the extremity of any other\nunderground structure, except that for drainage tile the minimum clearance\nmay be 12 inches (305 millimeters) but not less than 2 inches (51 millimeters).\nHowever, where 12 inches (305 millimeters) of clearance is impracticable, the\nclearance may be reduced if adequate provisions are made for corrosion control.\n3\n\n\n\nChevron’s Crude Oil #2 pipeline had a fencepost installed within three (3) inches of it. The\nprobable cause of the pipeline failure on June 11, 2010, was a high-voltage electrical current\nwhich went from the fencepost to the pipeline due to the proximity of the post to the pipeline.\nChevron had installed a pipeline marker within a foot of the fence post.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000\nfor any related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances\nand supporting documentation involved in the above probable violations and has\nrecommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $423,600 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $45,400\n2 $316,600\n3 $61,600\nWarning Items\nWith respect to item 4, we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents\ninvolved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty\nassessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct similar occurrences\non your Rangely to Salt Lake City pipeline. Be advised that failure to do so may result in\nChevron being subject to additional enforcement action.\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 1 through 3 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Chevron\nPipe Line Company. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and\nmade a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline\nOperators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response\noptions. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is\nsubject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive\nmaterial qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete\noriginal document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you\nbelieve qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the\nredacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not\nrespond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to\ncontest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline\nSafety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final\nOrder.\n4\n\n\n\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2010-5028 and for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 P. Katchmar, J. Stahoviak (#130345)\n5\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Chevron Pipe Line Company (Chevron) a\nCompliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance\nof Chevron with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to pipeline patrolling, if\nChevron continues to patrol their pipelines using an aerial method, they must\nsufficiently clear the right-of-way (ROW) on the Rangely, Colorado, to Salt\nLake City, Utah, crude oil pipeline system so they can observe the surface\nconditions on or adjacent to the ROW as required by §195.412. Alternatively,\nin areas where vegetation or other ROW obstructions cannot be removed, other\nmethods of patrolling, such as walking or driving, must be implemented to\nallow direct observation of the ROW conditions.\n2. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to electrical isolation and\nprotection from fault currents per §195.575, Chevron must inspect the Rangely\nto Salt Lake City crude oil pipeline system for areas where damage to their\npipeline facilities could occur from electrical power sources. Specifically, if the\npipeline is found to be in close proximity to electrical transmission tower\nfootings, ground cables, or counterpoise, or in other areas where it is reasonable\nto foresee fault currents or an unusual risk of lightning, Chevron must protect\nthe pipeline system against damage from fault currents or lightning and take\nprotective measures at insulating devices.\n3. In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to Chevron’s leak detection\nmethods utilized on the Rangely to Salt Lake City crude oil pipeline system and\nin accordance with §195.452 (i)(3), Chevron must reevaluate and modify its\nleak detection system on this pipeline to increase the swiftness and sensitivity\nof detection in order to minimize the impacts to high consequence areas.\n4. Chevron shall complete the above items within 365 days of receipt of the Final\nOrder.\n5. Upon completion of all of the above requirements, Chevron must submit\ndocumentation on all actions taken by pipeline system including a summary\nreport detailing the remedial actions taken to enhance public safety for each\npipeline system. This report must be submitted to Chris Hoidal, Director,\nWestern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,\nwithin 6 months of completing all required actions.\n6\n\n\n\n6. Chevron shall 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\nAdministration. Costs shall be reported in two categories: 1) total cost\nassociated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses,\nand 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to\npipeline infrastructure.\n7\n\n520105028_FinalOrder_02172011_text.pdf\n\nFEB 17 2011\nMs. Rebecca B. Roberts\nPresident\nChevron Pipe Line Company\n4800 Fournace Place\nBellaire, TX 77401-2324\nRe: CPF No. 5-2010-5028\nDear Ms. Roberts:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $423,600, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nChevron Pipe Line Company to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. This is to\nacknowledge receipt of payment of the full penalty amount, by wire transfer, dated December 2,\n2010. When the terms of the compliance order are completed, as determined by the Director,\nWestern Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified\nmail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0041 3566]\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)\nChevron Pipe Line Company, ) CPF No. 5-2010-5028\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn June 12, 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an\ninvestigation of an incident involving the pipeline system operated by Chevron Pipe Line\nCompany (Chevron or Respondent) in Salt Lake City, Utah. Chevron is the operator of a 182.5-\nmile hazardous liquid pipeline system that transports crude oil from a terminal in Rangely,\nColorado, to a refinery in Salt Lake City, Utah (Salt Lake City Refinery). There are two 10-inch\npipelines in that system: the Number 1 Line, an inactive line built in 1948, and the Number 2\nLine, an active line built in 1952.1\nThe investigation arose out of a failure that occurred on the Number 2 Line on June 11, 2010,\nnear Milepost (MP) 174.5, resulting in the release of 800 barrels of crude oil onto public\nproperty2 and into the Red Butte Creek. Chevron did not detect or respond to that failure for\nmore than 10 hours.\nAs a result of the investigation, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated November 1, 2010, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCivil Penalty and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Chevron had committed various violations of 49\nC.F.R. Part 195, proposed ordering Chevron to take certain measures to correct the alleged\nviolations, and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $423,600 for the alleged violations.\n1 The Number 2 Line receives crude oil in Rangely from a hazardous liquid gathering line system and at three\nadditional downstream injection points. It has an elevation profile that ranges from 4,234 feet at the Salt Lake City\nRefinery to 8,450 feet at Wolf Creek Pass and traverses several high consequence areas, particularly in the 50-mile\nsegment that runs from Park City, Utah, to Salt Lake City.\n2 MP 174.5 is located on property that is owned by the University of Utah. Several public buildings, including an\narboretum, auditorium, and dormitories, are in the immediate area.\n\n\n\n2\nChevron responded to the Notice by letter dated December 2, 2010 (Response). The company\ndid not contest the allegations of violation but provided information concerning the corrective\nactions it had taken. Later that day, Respondent paid the full amount of the civil penalty by wire\ntransfer as provided in 49 C.F.R. § 190.227. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore\nhas waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Chevron did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402, which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a\nmanual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance\nactivities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies….\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of\nthis section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during\nmaintenance and normal operations:\n(1) ….\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with\neach of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402 by failing to follow its manual\nof written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities. Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that Chevron failed to properly implement the provisions of its right-of-way\ninspection procedure, CPL-MIP 205 Pipeline Patrol, in the vicinity of MP 174.5. The Notice\nfurther alleged that Chevron failed to implement its procedures for controlling corrosion on its\npipeline systems as detailed in its Core Liquids Pipeline Operations and Maintenance Manual in\nSection 10.3.6.\nRespondent did not contest these allegations. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402 by failing to follow its manual of\nwritten procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.575(e), which states:\n§ 195.575 Which facilities must I electrically isolate and what inspections, tests, and\nsafeguards are required?\n(e) If a pipeline is in close proximity to electrical transmission tower footings,\nground cables, or counterpoise, or in other areas where it is reasonable to foresee fault\ncurrents or an unusual risk of lightning, you must protect the pipeline against damage\nfrom fault currents or lightning and take protective measures at insulating devices.\n\n\n\n3\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.575(e) by failing to protect the\npipeline against damage from fault currents or lightning and take protective measures at\ninsulating devices. Specifically, the Notice alleged that several high-voltage electric\ntransmission lines, an aboveground-to-belowground electric transfer station, and a security fence\nare located in the vicinity of MP 174.5, and that Chevron had not protected that portion of the\nNumber 2 Line against damage from fault currents and had not taken protective measures at\ninsulating devices.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.575(e) by failing to protect the\npipeline against damage from fault currents or lightning and failing to take protective measures\nat insulating devices.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(3), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(i) What preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take to protect\nthe high consequence area?\n(3) Leak detection. An operator must have a means to detect leaks on its pipeline\nsystem. An operator must evaluate the capability of its leak detection means and modify,\nas necessary, to protect the high consequence area. An operator's evaluation must, at\nleast, consider, the following factors – length and size of the pipeline, type of product\ncarried, the pipeline's proximity to the high consequence area, the swiftness of leak\ndetection, location of nearest response personnel, leak history, and risk assessment\nresults.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452 by failing to have an adequate\nmeans for detecting leaks on its pipeline system. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Chevron\ndid not detect the June 11, 2010 failure on the Number 2 Line for more than 10 hours, and that\nRespondent first became aware of the release when it received a phone call from the local fire\ndepartment. The Notice further alleged that the failure occurred in a high-consequence area and\nresulted in the release of approximately 800 barrels of crude oil into the Red Butte Creek and\nsurrounding soils.\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452 by failing to have an\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation.3 Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nadequate means for detecting leaks on its pipeline system.\n3 OPS’s accident investigation report indicates that Chevron knew that the elevation profile and operational\ncharacteristics of the Number 2 Line rendered its leak detection inadequate. Indeed, in an August 13, 2010 response\nto a request for specific information, Chevron admitted that it had performed a leak detection capability evaluation\nstudy of the Number 2 Line in 2007, and that this report concluded that the leak detection capabilities on that line\nneeded to be improved. However, Chevron did not implement that recommendation until after the June 11, 2010\nfailure.\n\n\n\n4\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the 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 safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $423,600 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $45,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.402, for failing to follow its manual of written procedures for conducting normal\noperations and maintenance activities. Chevron neither contested the allegation nor presented\nany evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$45,400 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $316,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 195.575, for failing to protect its pipeline against damage from fault currents or\nlightning and failing to take protective measures at insulating devices. Chevron neither contested\nthe allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed\npenalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I\nassess Respondent a civil penalty of $316,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.575.\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $61,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452, for failing to have an adequate means to detect leaks on its pipeline system. Chevron\nneither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in\nthe proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $61,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452.\nChevron paid the full civil penalty amount of $423,600 for these violations by wire transfer dated\nDecember 2, 2010. Accordingly, the case is hereby closed with prejudice to the Respondent\nunder 49 C.F.R. § 190.209(a)(1).\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, and 3 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.402, 195.575, and 195.452, respectively. Under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217,\nRespondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety\nregulations applicable to its operations:\n\n\n\n5\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.402 (Item 1), Respondent must clear the\nROW for the Rangely, Colorado, to Salt Lake City, Utah pipeline system to continue\nusing aerial patrols to perform the inspections required under 49 C.F.R. § 195.412. In\nareas where vegetation or other obstructions cannot be removed, Respondent must\nuse other methods of patrolling, such as walking or driving, to allow for direct\nobservation of the ROW’s condition.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.575 (Item 2), Respondent must inspect the\nRangely, Colorado, to Salt Lake City, Utah pipeline system for areas where damage\nto those facilities could occur from electrical sources. Specifically, if the pipeline is\nfound to be in close proximity to electrical transmission tower footings, ground\ncables, or counterpoise, or in other areas where it is reasonable to foresee fault\ncurrents or an unusual risk of lightning, Chevron must protect the pipeline system\nagainst damage from those forces and take protective measures at insulating devices.\n3. With respect to the violation of § 195.452 (Item 3), Respondent must reevaluate\nand modify its leak detection system for the Rangely, Colorado, to Salt Lake City,\nUtah pipeline system to increase the swiftness and sensitivity of leak detection in\norder to minimize impacts to high consequence areas.\n4. Chevron must complete Items 1, 2, and 3 within 365 days of receipt of this Final\nOrder.\n5. Upon completion of Items 1, 2, and 3, Chevron must submit documentation of all\nactions taken on the pipeline system, including a summary report detailing the\nremedial actions taken to improve public safety. This report must be submitted to\nChris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA, within 6 months of completing\nItems 1, 2, and 3.\n6. It is requested that Chevron maintain documentation of the safety-improvement\ncosts associated with fulfilling the terms of this Compliance Order and submit the\ntotal to Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA. It is requested that costs be\nreported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of\nplans, procedures, studies, and analyses and (2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions, and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\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.\n\n\n\n6\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 4, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 195 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning\nitem. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.250 (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to ensure that any\npipe installed underground have at least 12 inches (305 millimeters) of clearance\nbetween the outside of the pipe and the extremity of any other underground\nstructure.\nChevron presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited item. Accordingly, having considered such information, I find, pursuant to 49\nC.F.R. § 190.205, that a probable violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.250 (Notice Item 4) has occurred\nand Respondent has corrected such conditions. If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a\nsubsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":32680}