{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320155009","title":"ENLINK OHIO RIVER VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2015-11-02","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.452(f), 195.49.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320155009.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320155009.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320155009","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320155009","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ENLINK OHIO RIVER VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.452(f),  195.49. The case was opened on 2015-11-02 and is reported as closed as of 2018-01-18. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320155009_Final Order_01182018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320155009/320155009_Final%20Order_01182018.pdf\n\n320155009_Final Order_01182018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320155009/320155009_Final%20Order_01182018_text.pdf\n\n320155009_NOPV PCO_11022015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320155009/320155009_NOPV%20PCO_11022015.pdf\n\n320155009_NOPV PCO_11022015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320155009/320155009_NOPV%20PCO_11022015_text.pdf\n\n320155009_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing_12302015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320155009/320155009_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing_12302015.pdf\n\n320155009_Final Order_01182018_text.pdf\n\nJanuary 18, 2018\nMr. Barry E. Davis, CEO\nEnLink Midstream\n2501 Cedar Springs Road\nSuite 100\nDallas, TX 75201\nRe: CPF No. 3-2015-5009\nDear Mr. Davis:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the\nallegations of violation and the proposed compliance order against Ohio River Valley Pipeline,\nLLC, a subsidiary of EnLink Midstream. This case is now closed. Service of the Final Order by\ncertified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Vince Murchison, Counsel for Ohio River Valley Pipeline, LLC, Murchison Law\nFirm, 325 North St. Paul Street Suite 2700, Dallas, Texas 75201\nMr. Mac Hummel, Executive Vice President, Ohio River Valley Pipeline, LLC\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nOhio River Valley Pipeline, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2015-5009\na subsidiary of EnLink Midstream, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn December 10-14, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Ohio River Valley\nPipeline, LLC (ORV or Respondent), in Nashport, Ohio. ORV’s crude oil system consists of\n64.87 miles of 6-inch and 8-inch pipeline running south from Killbuck, Ohio, to Nashport, Ohio,\ncontinuing south to Sego, Ohio, Corning, Ohio, east to Lowell, Ohio, and southeast to the Ohio\nRiver terminal. The system receives product from over-the-road tanker trucks, which deliver to\ncollection tanks at various locations. ORV is an affiliate of the EnLink Midstream companies,\nEnLink Midstream Partners, LP and EnLink Midstream, LLC (the general partner).\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated November 2, 2015, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance\nOrder (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that ORV\nhad committed three violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed ordering Respondent to take\ncertain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated December 30, 2015 (Response). ORV\ncontested all of the allegations and requested a hearing. A hearing was subsequently held on\nJuly 27, 2016, in Kansas City, Missouri, with an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel,\nPHMSA, serving as Presiding Official. At the hearing, Respondent was represented by counsel.\nAfter the hearing, Respondent provided a post-hearing submission for the record, dated August\n26, 2016 (Closing). OPS provided a recommendation dated November 21, 2016, and\nRespondent submitted a reply dated January 27, 2017.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2015-5009\nPage 2\nBACKGROUND\nThe ORV system moves crude oil, which is collected and stored at Respondent’s Killbuck\nStation near Killbuck, Holmes County, Ohio, then periodically moved in batches to Bells Run\nStation near Marietta, Washington County, Ohio, a total distance of 126.08 miles. At\nintervening stations, additional crude oil, and, at two locations, condensate, are collected and\nstored, then periodically moved onto the ORV Pipeline.1 The crude oil moved on the ORV\nPipeline is produced as a mixture of crude petroleum, salt water (brine), and sediment. The\nproduced mixture is moved from wellsite tanks by trucks, which take the unprocessed mixture to\ncollection stations on the ORV Pipeline, where the mixture is offloaded into one or more tanks.\nAt some collection facilities, water is settled out while the mixture is held in these tanks.2\nFrom the collection-station tanks, the product is then moved onto the ORV Pipeline in batches.\nLowell Station is configured such that it may receive previously separated crude from the\npipeline, as well as receive full well-stream production from trucks. Lowell is not configured,\nhowever, to have separated water removed. This can result in the mixing of separated crude oil\nwith unseparated crude oil, all of which then is separated after movement to Bells Run. The\ncrude petroleum ultimately reaches ORV’s Bells Run facility. In addition to crude oil,\ncondensate (a hydrocarbon liquid similar to crude oil) is gathered at the Black Run and Bells Run\nfacilities, via truck transport. During the time the condensate is stored in the tanks, produced\nwater separates from the mixture and is then removed for disposal. At Bells Run, all crude oil\nand condensate are prepared for further transportation by barge.\n3\nCLASSIFICATION OF THE OHIO RIVER VALLEY PIPELINE\nIn the Notice, OPS alleged that the pipeline was not a “gathering line” which would be subject\nonly to limited requirements in Part 195, but, rather, was a covered transmission line (or trunk\nline) under § 195.1(a)(3) subject to all regulatory obligations of Part 195.4 During the hearing,\nOPS explained that it did not consider the ORV Pipeline to be a gathering line because there was\nno physical pipe connection to well production, but instead all product transported in the pipeline\nwas received from tanker trucks at collection stations along the pipeline.\nRespondent contested OPS’ determination that the ORV Pipeline was not a gathering line. ORV\nsubmits that the pipeline is a gathering line, with certain segments that are unregulated and\ncertain segments that are “regulated rural gathering lines” under 49 C.F.R. § 195.11 (two of these\nare short segments which are subject to the full breadth of Part 195). Specifically, ORV testified\nat the hearing that the 126-mile ORV Pipeline is a gathering line system pursuant to 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.1(a)(4)(i)-(ii), with 68.46 miles of regulated rural gathering line; two segments are fully\n1 Closing at 4.\n2 Closing at 5.\n3 Closing at 5-6.\n4 Notice at 2. “Transmission line” is a term that is not actually defined in § 195.2 of the hazardous liquid pipeline\nsafety regulations and is more commonly used with respect to natural gas pipelines covered by Part 192. However,\nwe use it here as a useful aid to help clarify the distinction with the term gathering line.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2015-5009\nPage 3\nregulated under all subparts of Part 195, consisting of an approximately 1,700-foot segment\nwithin the city limits of Brownsville, Ohio, and a 621-foot segment across the Muskingum River\nbetween Lowell Station and Bells Run Station, a waterway currently used for commercial\nnavigation.\nThe parties agree that all three of the alleged violations in the Notice rest on this single issue:\nwhether the ORV Pipeline is a gathering line or a transmission line.\nAnalysis\n1. Demarcation between production and transportation.\nThe applicable pipeline safety regulations at 49 C.F.R. § 195.2 define a “gathering line” as “a\npipeline 219.1 mm (8-5/8 inch) or less nominal outside diameter that transports petroleum from a\nproduction facility.” Generally speaking, gathering lines tend to be smaller-diameter, low-\npressure pipelines typically located in remote areas.\nThe parties agree that the ORV Pipeline meets all of the size and pressure criteria for a\n(regulated) gathering line set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 195.11(a) as follows:\n(a) Definition. As used in this section, a regulated rural\ngathering line means an onshore gathering line in a rural area that\nmeets all of the following criteria—\n(1) Has a nominal diameter from 6⅝ inches (168 mm) to 8⅝\ninches (219.1 mm);\n(2) Is located in or within one-quarter mile (.40 km) of an\nunusually sensitive area as defined in §195.6; and\n(3) Operates at a maximum pressure established under §195.406\ncorresponding to—\n(i) A stress level greater than 20-percent of the specified\nminimum yield strength of the line pipe; or\n(ii) If the stress level is unknown or the pipeline is not\nconstructed with steel pipe, a pressure of more than 125 psi (861\nkPa) gage.\nTherefore, the question of whether the ORV Pipeline is properly classified as a gathering\npipeline or a transmission pipeline depends on whether the ORV Pipeline “transports petroleum\nfrom a production facility,” as that phrase is used in 49 C.F.R. § 195.2.\nA “production facility,” in turn, is defined in § 195.2 as:\n. . . [P]iping or equipment used in the production, extraction,\nrecovery, lifting, stabilization, separation or treating of petroleum or\ncarbon dioxide, or associated storage or measurement. (To be a\nproduction facility under this definition, piping or equipment must\nbe used in the process of extracting petroleum or carbon dioxide\nfrom the ground or from facilities where CO2 is produced, and\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2015-5009\nPage 4\npreparing it for transportation by pipeline. This includes piping\nbetween treatment plants which extract carbon dioxide, and\nfacilities utilized for the injection of carbon dioxide for recovery\noperations.)5\nAs an initial matter, the parties disagreed about whether the trucks used to move the oil to the\ncollection stations on the ORV pipeline were “equipment” used in the production of the oil.\nOPS contended that the trucks used to move product from the well sites to the collection stations\non the pipeline do not meet the regulatory definition of “equipment” because the trucks are not\nconnected to the ground. Based on its conclusion that the trucks are not production equipment,\nOPS believes that the product does not come “from a production facility.”6\nIn response, ORVP argued that the trucks should be considered to be production equipment,\nmaking them part of the production facility and thus negating OPS’ argument that the oil does\nnot come from a production facility. ORV provided many common definitions of the term\n“equipment,” including Black's Law Dictionary Online Legal Dictionary. It defines equipment\nas “[t]ools, be they devices, machines, or vehicles” to “assist a person in achieving an action\nbeyond the normal capabilities of a human.” ORV argued that trucks are used commonly to\nmove crude oil from wellsites to processing facilities.7 ORV explained that the crude oil is\ncollected in tanks along the system, then stored in tanks where separation and stabilization may\noccur until a batch is moved onto the ORV Pipeline.8 ORV noted that the collection stations\nwhere crude oil is collected into tanks perform some of the same functions as some oil\nproduction facilities. For example, water, is separated from the crude oil and removed from the\ntanks at different stations for disposal into injection wells.\nHaving considered both parties’ arguments on the issue of whether the trucks used to move the\noil from the well sites to the collection stations on the ORV Pipeline are equipment used to\nproduce the oil, I find that ORV’s argument that these trucks are part of the production facility\n(i.e., the well) is inconsistent with the purpose of these definitions in establishing a demarcation\nbetween production and transportation. The Part 195 definition of “production facility” is\nmainly focused on the extraction function. Under the federal statutory and regulatory structure,\nhowever, gathering is transportation. The fact that some functions, such as water removal, that\nare done at some gathering facilities are also done at some production facilities is not dispositive,\n5 49 C.F.R. § 195.2. Production facilities are facilities necessary to perform tasks of extracting and “preparing the\npetroleum for transportation by pipeline (stabilization, separation, treating, storage, measurement).” As directed by\nthe preamble to the Final Rule, the function of the facility determines (along with the size of the pipe) whether the\nfacility is a production facility.\n6 Region Recommendation at 2.\n7 Closing at 26.\n8 ORV argued that in its view the collection stations on the pipeline were production facilities. Closing at 12-13.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2015-5009\nPage 5\nbecause water removal and other treatment and processing steps can also be done after oil leaves\na production facility and enters the stream of transportation.9 Secondly, OPS correctly pointed\nout that over-the-road trucking is itself a mode of transportation. Each truck would be subject to\nits own regulatory requirements elsewhere in the CFR for motor carriers, as well as specific\nregulations that apply to the transportation of flammable liquids by truck.10 Asking PHMSA, an\nagency within the U.S. Department of Transportation, to designate these trucks as production\nequipment rather than transportation would create inconsistencies in the applicability of the\nexisting regulatory frameworks for truck transportation. Transportation is simply the movement\nof something from one location to another, which is the function of these trucks.11 On balance,\nORV is not persuasive that trucks used to transport product from well sites over public roads are\nproduction equipment for purposes of the § 195.2 definition of “production facility.” Therefore,\nI do not make such a finding here.\n2. Applicability of the regulatory “gathering line” definition to the functional configuration\nof the ORV system.\nThe determinative issue in this case is whether, despite ORV’s argument about the trucks being\nproduction equipment being incorrect, OPS has carried its burden of establishing that ORV\ncommitted the alleged violations in the Notice by improperly classifying the pipeline as a\ngathering line.\nAs noted above, the applicable pipeline safety regulations at 49 C.F.R. § 195.2 define a\n“gathering line” as “a pipeline 219.1 mm (8⅝ inch) or less nominal outside diameter that\ntransports petroleum from a production facility.” Generally speaking, gathering lines tend to be\nsmaller-diameter, low-pressure pipelines typically located in remote areas that collect crude oil\nand move it downstream for further transportation.12 The OPV Pipeline meets the typical\ncharacteristics and functions of a gathering line.\nOPS maintained that any pipeline not directly connected to a well cannot be considered a\ngathering line but must be classified as a transmission line, despite meeting all of the size and\npressure-related criteria for classification as a gathering line. ORV argued that the ORV Pipeline\nis eight inches in diameter or less, transports petroleum, and therefore would be a gathering line\nas long as it is transporting the petroleum “from a production facility,” regardless of whether it is\ndirectly connected to a well.\n9 In this case, the trucks are owned and operated by ORV. However, it appears that there is nothing stopping a well\nowner or operator from selling its oil to a truck transportation company that neither produces oil nor operates any\npipelines but simply transports oil from the well to a pipeline station for further transportation.\n10 See 49 C.F.R. Parts 350-399.\n11 The truck is actually performing the same function as a gathering pipeline in that it is receiving product directly\nfrom the well and then delivering that product to a collection point, where it is combined with product from other\nwells and further transported. Thus, these trucks can be seen as an early step in the overall gathering process that\nORV has in place and that involves trucks, tanks and pipelines.\n12 The regulatory scheme exempts or imposes lighter regulations on gathering lines, on the basis that they are\ngenerally thought to have lower risk than transmission lines and generally would have lower consequences in the\nevent of a failure.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2015-5009\nPage 6\nIn support of its position, ORV cited an agency interpretation letter that had been issued by\nPHMSA and was available to operators on PHMSA’s website. Specifically, ORV cited the\nEOTT interpretation letter, in which PHMSA concluded that the crude oil pipeline was a non-\nregulated gathering line under § 195.1(b)(4) because it was “less than 8⅝ inches in nominal\noutside diameter, transports petroleum from a production facility, and [was] located in a rural\narea”.13 This interpretation involved a system in which the requester explained that “Oil is\ngathered from production facilities… [and] enters the gathering system at three other locations...\nThe gathering system [has] a truck injection pipeline at Rhame Station and at one other location\nbefore it gets to Baker Station, which … does not change the character of the downstream line\nfrom gathering.”14 In its interpretation letter, PHMSA determined that the system was a\ngathering system, stating that it “agrees…that the EOTT crude oil pipeline system from Rhame\nStation in North Dakota to Baker Station in Montana is a non-regulated gathering line under\n§195.1(b)(4) because it is less than 8⅝ inches in nominal outside diameter, transports petroleum\nfrom a production facility, and is located in a rural area.”15 ORV argued that the functional\nconfiguration of the ORV Pipeline system was substantially similar to the EOTT pipeline system\nand therefore should also be classified as a gathering line.\nOPS also pointed to interpretation letters that it believed would support its position. OPS cited\nthe Brooks Range Petroleum interpretation letter, in which the operator requested confirmation\nthat a 6-inch oil pipeline was a gathering line and therefore not subject to Part 195. PHMSA\ndetermined that the pipeline was subject to Part 195, stating that because “it does not extend\ndirectly from a well or production facility…it is not exempt as a production or gathering line.”\nOPS also cited a Questar interpretation letter which “determined that a line which receives\npetroleum from a truck-unloading facility, among other line characteristics, would be regulated\nunder Part 195.” However, the determining factor in PHMSA finding that the line was not a\ngathering line was a different criterion: the specified minimum yield strength of the pipe.\nPHMSA’s interpretation letters “reflect the agency’s current application of the regulations to the\nspecific facts presented by the person requesting the clarification.”16 Interpretations therefore\nprovide guidance in understanding PHMSA’s regulations; however, they do not carry the weight\nof law. When presented with an interpretation with similar facts to the case at-issue, that\ninterpretation generally should be given more weight than one with dissimilar facts. For\npurposes of the issue in this case, I find that the EOTT interpretation letter has more relevance\nthan the letters cited by OPS given its parallels to ORV’s system, including the use of trucks.\nWhile the Brooks Range interpretation did appear to offer some support for OPS’ position, ORV\nargued persuasively that the ORV Pipeline is configured the same as the EOTT gathering line\nand functions largely the same as the EOTT gathering line.\nMore significantly, the record in this case demonstrates that PHMSA has never promulgated a\nregulation or even authoritative guidance clearly establishing that a pipeline that is not directly\n13 Mr. David Johnson, PHMSA Interp. No. PI-03-0103 (June 11, 2003) (available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/\nregs/ interps) (EOTT Interpretation).\n14 EOTT Interpretation.\n15 EOTT Interpretation.\n16 See www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/interps.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2015-5009\nPage 7\nconnected to a well cannot be a gathering line and must be classified as a transmission line,\ndespite meeting all of the size- and risk-related criteria for classification as a gathering line. OPS\ndid not establish that there was any formalized limitation on the definition of a gathering line that\nimposed the additional requirement of direct physical connection by pipe to a well. All oil\nmoving in the gathering process comes “from a production facility.” The applicable regulations\ndo not bar any pipeline that begins at a point other than a well, such as a collection point fed by\ntrucks, from being a gathering line. Rather, the agency declined to name every pipeline that\nbegins at a truck unloading station to be a gathering line.\nIn addition, it appears clear from the record that the line has never been treated as a transmission\nline by its operators or by OPS. Rather it has been treated as a gathering line for the last 37\nyears. OPS provided no information in the record establishing that the agency has historically\ntreated this or any other lines like the ORV Pipeline as transmission lines. For example, OPS did\nnot cite even one prior enforcement case where an operator of a truck-supplied gathering line\nwas found to have violated any regulation in Part 195 that was applicable to non-gathering lines.\nUnder circumstances where an agency is using an enforcement proceeding that would penalize\nan operator and seeks to change the status quo in how a given type of facility has apparently been\ntreated in the past, that agency is obligated to provide notice to affected operators. The phrase\n“from a production facility” does not provide an operator with any certainty on the issue of\nwhether a direct pipe connection is required or not and the guidance issued by OPS in the form\nof interpretation letters is conflicting at best. Even if OPS has reason to believe that lines like the\nORV Pipeline should begin to be classified as transmission lines, it remains bound by the “fair\nnotice” standard.\nFinally, while not legally dispositive, ORV presented testimony at the hearing that if the use of\ntrucks to supply small pipelines like the OPV Pipeline would suddenly cause them to become\nfully regulated transmission lines, it could cause significant impacts on the ability of small well\ndrillers to get their products to market. Many operators of small gathering systems that service\nsmall drilling operations could face significant new cost burdens if all of these lines suddenly\nhad to be treated as fully regulated transmission lines.17 Basic fairness dictates that if OPS wants\nto bar any pipeline that begins at a point other than a well (such as a collection point fed by\ntrucks) from being classified as a gathering line, it should undertake appropriate administrative\nproceedings to accomplish that in an unambiguous fashion with advance notice to regulated\nparties.18\nBased on the foregoing, I find that OPS did not establish that the ORV Pipeline was improperly\nclassified as a (regulated) gathering line.\nFinally, it should be emphasized that this determination, i.e., that the ORV Pipeline is a gathering\nline, does not mean that the pipeline is entirely unregulated. ORV has conceded that certain\nportions of its pipeline are regulated gathering lines subject to the basic safety requirements\n17 Hearing Transcript at 173-175.\n18 OPS acknowledged at the hearing that some of the jurisdictional diagrams available online that operators might\nrefer to as part of making their line classifications had undergone changes in the months before the NOPV was\nissued.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2015-5009\nPage 8\nfound in § 195.11(b). If OPS believes that any portions of this gathering system were not\ndesignated by ORV as “regulated gathering” but should have been, OPS is free to revisit that\nissue in a future proceeding.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.49, which states\n§ 195.49 Annual report.\nEach operator must annually complete and submit DOT Form PHMSA\nF7000-1.1 for each type of hazardous liquid pipeline facility operated at the\nend of the previous year. An operator must submit the annual report by June\n15 each year, except that for the 2010 reporting year the report must be\nsubmitted by August 15, 2011. A separate report is required for crude oil,\nHVL (including anhydrous ammonia), petroleum products, carbon dioxide\npipelines, and fuel grade ethanol pipelines. For each state a pipeline\ntraverses, an operator must separately complete those sections on the form\nrequiring information to be reported for each state.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.49 by failing to complete and\nsubmit DOT Form PHMSA F7000-1.1 for each type of hazardous liquid pipeline facility\noperated at the end of the previous year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that ORV’s annual\nreports had been submitted on the premise that the pipeline was a regulated rural gathering line\nand therefore did not reflect the status of the ORV Pipeline as a pipeline subject to the scope of\nall subparts of 49 CFR 195.\nIn its Response, at the hearing, and in its Closing, ORV contested the alleged violation. It stated\nthat “the regulated segments of Respondent’s pipeline are regulated rural gathering lines,” and\ntherefore, it was in compliance with Part 195 reporting requirements.\nAs discussed above, I find that the ORV Pipeline is a gathering line. Accordingly, after\nconsidering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that ORV has not violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.49 as alleged in the Notice. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item\n1 be withdrawn.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system\na manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance\nactivities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall\nbe reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is\neffective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline\nsystem commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2015-5009\nPage 9\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to implement a\nmanual of written procedures with regard to the full scope of Part 195 before the pipeline system\nwent into operation. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the procedures in place at the time of\ninspection were inadequate because the manual included only procedures for implementing the\nsafety requirements in § 195.11(b) for regulated rural gathering lines and did not include written\nprocedures for a pipeline subject to all subparts of 49 C.F.R. Part 195.\nIn its Response, ORV disputed the allegation. It stated that the ORV Pipeline was a gathering\nline and therefore not required to include written procedures for a pipeline subject to all subparts\nof 49 CFR 195 in its manual. ORV further stated that there was no allegation that ORV failed to\nhave or follow written procedures for the safety requirements in § 195.11(b) for regulated rural\ngathering lines\nAs discussed above, I find that the ORV Pipeline is a gathering line. Accordingly, after\nconsidering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that ORV has not violated\n49 C.F.R. § 402(a) as alleged in the Notice. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 2\nbe withdrawn.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) …\n(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An\nintegrity management program begins with the initial framework. An\noperator must continually change the program to reflect operating\nexperience, conclusions drawn from results of the integrity assessments,\nand other maintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation of\nconsequences of a failure on the high consequence area. An operator must\ninclude, at minimum, each of the following elements in its written integrity\nmanagement program:\n(1) A process for identifying which pipeline segments could affect a\nhigh consequence area;\n(2) A baseline assessment plan meeting the requirements of paragraph\n(c) of this section;\n(3) An analysis that integrates all available information about the\nintegrity of the entire pipeline and the consequences of a failure (se\nparagraph (g) of this section);\n(4) Criteria for remedial actions to address integrity issues raised by the\nassessment methods and information analysis (see paragraph (h) of this\nsection);\n(5) A continual process of assessment and evaluation to maintain a\npipeline's integrity (see paragraph (j) of this section);\n(6) Identification of preventive and mitigative measures to protect the\nhigh consequence area (see paragraph (i) of this section);\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2015-5009\nPage 10\n(7) Methods to measure the program’s effectiveness (see paragraph (k)\nof this section);\n(8) A process for review of integrity assessment results and information\nanalysis by a person qualified to evaluate the results and information (see\nparagraph (h)(2) of this section).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f) by failing to have a written\nintegrity management program in place. Specifically, the Notice alleged that ORV’s pipeline\nsystem was operated as a gathering line and not operating under the framework of an integrity\nmanagement program.\nIn its Response, ORV disputed the allegation. It stated that the at issue pipeline was a regulated\nrural gathering line, and therefore, it was not required to develop and implement a written\nintegrity management program under 49 C.F.R. § 95.452(f).\nAs discussed above, I find that the ORV Pipeline is a gathering line. Accordingly, after\nconsidering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that ORV has not violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f) as alleged in the Notice. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that\nItem 3 be withdrawn.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, and 3 in the Notice for the\nalleged violations of 49 C.F.R. § 195. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in\nthe transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601.\nAs discussed above, I have withdrawn the alleged violations. Therefore, the proposed\ncompliance order is also withdrawn.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nJanuary 18, 2018\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":31777}