An Exxon Mobil filing in U.S. District Court on Friday urged the judge considering a proposed settlement among the state, the U.S. Justice Department and the oil giant to disregard a letter from Central Arkansas Water that sought a delay or rejection of the deal.
The proposed consent decree would settle a lawsuit that the state and federal governments filed against Exxon Mobil Pipeline Co. and Mobil Pipe Line Co. after the Pegasus pipeline ruptured in Mayflower's Northwoods neighborhood on March 29, 2013, and spilled tens of thousands of gallons of heavy crude into the neighborhood, drainage ditches and a cove of Lake Conway.
Central Arkansas Water's letter assailed the federal government for dismissing the utility's request to move the Pegasus pipeline away from the watershed of Lake Maumelle, which provides drinking water for more than 400,000 people. The underground pipeline runs through about 13.4 miles of the lake's watershed.
In response to the letter, Exxon Mobil Pipeline Co. and Mobil Pipe Line Co. said the utility's main concern was the proximity of a portion of the pipeline near Lake Maumelle in Pulaski County that was not involved in the Mayflower incident in Faulkner County.
The oil company also cited a 1956 agreement between Little Rock Municipal Water Works and Magnolia Pipe Line Co. -- both predecessors to the current entities involved -- during work to create the lake, which was finished in 1958.
The pipeline was built in 1947-48.
"The 1956 Agreement set forth the new route of the pipeline around the proposed lake, required the water utility to pay the company $376,000 for the relocation work, and required the utility to grant easements over any city land crossed by the relocated pipeline," the letter said. "The current location of the Pegasus Pipeline near Lake Maumelle is precisely where the water utility specified it."
The letter also noted that the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has primary jurisdiction over most of Central Arkansas Water's issues with the pipeline and that the utility's letter should not be "entertained by the court."
"CAW -- a sophisticated entity with its own legal department -- is not a party to this matter, has never sought such status, and now attempts an end-run around the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," the response said.
The Justice Department said in a Wednesday filing that the federal court does not have the authority to order the removal of the pipeline.
"CAW now asserts that the Consent Decree should only be entered if it can eliminate all of the risks posed to the watershed by the Pegasus Pipeline, presumably by a requirement that ExxonMobil remove or relocate the entire pipeline," the Justice Department wrote in its response.
"However, courts are 'not empowered to rewrite ... settlements agreed upon by the parties,'" the department wrote, citing a 1982 decision by a federal appeals court.
"Thus CAW advocates for action beyond the scope of the [District] Court's role in deciding whether to enter the Consent Decree. ... If CAW believes that pipeline removal is an appropriate remedy for its concerns, it is, of course, free to pursue those concerns through its own advocacy."
Metro on 08/01/2015
Document set
Mayflower oil spill
- ExxonMobil final downstream data assessment report
- Central Arkansas Water letter to PHMSA
- Rudy Webb, et al v. Exxon Mobil Corporation briefing
- Exxon's response to Central Arkansas Water
- Central Arkansas Water letter to Judge Baker
- Exxon Mobil complaint
- Exxon Mobil consent decree
- Exxon Mobil Federal Agency Report
- Exxon responds to motion to disclose all oil spill docs
- Plantiffs' motion to Exxon Mobil
- Exxon Mobil petition
- Exxon Mobil remedial work plan proposal
- Exxon Mobil responds to lawsuit
- Mobil Pipeline Company respond to lawsuit
- Accufacts Major Issues Memo
- ExxonMobil Environmental Services Co. mitigation action plan
- Exxon Mobil's Pegasus pipeline remedial work plan
- PHMSA approves Exxon Mobil's plan to reopen part of Pegasus pipeline
- ExxonMobil DADAR report, revision 5
- ADEQ comments on ExxonMobil's final report
- Exxon fact sheet on Pegasus pipeline segments
- Downstream Areas Data Assessment Report
- Responses to ADEQ Comments
- Sheen monitoring report no. 8
- PHMSA responds to ADH letter
- June 3 letter from ADH to PHMSA, EMPCO
- ExxonMobil hearing request
- Letter: Griffin opposed to restarting Pegasus pipeline
- Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration updated report on Exxon spill
- ExxonMobil $2.6 million fine
- Rep. Griffin responds to McDaniel's letter
- McDaniel's letter to Rep. Griffin
- Mayflower mayor statement on spill 6 months later
- Confidentiality agreement between Exxon, CAW
- Notice of intent to file civil suit against ExxonMobil, PHMSA
- CAW's notice of intent letter to Arkansas officials
- Tim Griffin letter to Exxon Mobil
- Letter from ExxonMobil president
- ExxonMobil emergency response plan request letter
- Central Ark. Water 2010 letter to PHMSA
- 2010 Pipeline report: Doniphan-Conway
- 2010 Pipeline report: Conway-Corsicana (Part 4)
- 2010 Pipeline report: Conway-Corsicana (Part 3)
- 2010 Pipeline report: Conway-Corsicana (Part 2)
- 2010 Pipeline report: Conway-Corsicana (Part 1)
- Oil spill pressure test, Section 21
- Oil spill pressure test, Section 8
- Oil spill pressure test, Section 15
- Oil spill pressure test, Section 1
- Mayflower oil spill: Metallurgical report
- Pryor, Boozman, Griffin oil spill letter
- ExxonMobil responds to Arkansas officials
- Exxon Mobil's response to Rep. Markey letter
- Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration response to Rep. Markey letter
- Rep. Markey letter to Exxon
- Rep. Markey letter to Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- Class-action suit against Exxon Mobil
- U.S.-Arkansas complaint against Exxon Mobil
- Exxon property purchase program
- Mayflower oil spill: Federal Corrective Action Order
- Mayflower oil spill clean-up response draft
- Mayflower oil spill: Exxon status maps for April 3-4
- Mayflower oil spill: April 4 cleanup assignments
- Mayflower oil spill: Wildlife task force assignments for April 3
- Mayflower oil spill: EPA report for April 2
- Mayflower oil spill: EPA report for April 3
- Mayflower oil spill: EPA report for April 4
- Mayflower oil spill: EPA report for April 7
- Mayflower oil spill: EPA report for March 31
- Mayflower oil spill: EPA report for April 1
- Mayflower oil spill: Incident status summary
- Mayflower oil spill: Wabasca heavy crude oil data
- Mayflower oil spill: Sampling and analysis plan
- Mayflower oil spill: Waste disposal plan
- Mayflower oil spill: Homeowner re-entry plan
- Mayflower oil spill: EPA report for March 30
- Lawsuit filed against Exxon Mobil in Mayflower oil spill