# BOE MIDSTREAM — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 32021051NOPV
- **title:** BOE MIDSTREAM — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2021-11-10
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.440(c), 195.440(g), 195.452(h)(4)(iii)(E), 195.452(l)(1)(ii), 195.573(e), 195.581(b).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32021051nopv.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32021051nopv.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32021051nopv
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/32021051NOPV
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving BOE MIDSTREAM. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.440(c),  195.440(g),  195.452(h)(4)(iii)(E),  195.452(l)(1)(ii),  195.573(e),  195.581(b). The case was opened on 2021-11-10 and is reported as closed as of 2022-09-15. Proposed civil penalty: $61,700. Assessed civil penalty: $42,100. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

32021051NOPV_Closure Letter_09152022_(21-200403).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32021051NOPV/32021051NOPV_Closure%20Letter_09152022_(21-200403).pdf

32021051NOPV_Closure Letter_09152022_(21-200403)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32021051NOPV/32021051NOPV_Closure%20Letter_09152022_(21-200403)_text.pdf

32021051NOPV_Final Order_08182022_(21-200403).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32021051NOPV/32021051NOPV_Final%20Order_08182022_(21-200403).pdf

32021051NOPV_Final Order_08182022_(21-200403)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32021051NOPV/32021051NOPV_Final%20Order_08182022_(21-200403)_text.pdf

32021051NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_02042022_(21-200403).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32021051NOPV/32021051NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_02042022_(21-200403).pdf

32021051NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_12102021_(21-200403).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32021051NOPV/32021051NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_12102021_(21-200403).pdf

32021051NOPV_PCP PCO_11102021_(21-200403).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32021051NOPV/32021051NOPV_PCP%20PCO_11102021_(21-200403).pdf

32021051NOPV_PCP PCO_11102021_(21-200403)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32021051NOPV/32021051NOPV_PCP%20PCO_11102021_(21-200403)_text.pdf

32021051NOPV_Closure Letter_09152022_(21-200403)_text.pdf

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: mos@everdesk.com; BMcDowell@BOEMidstream.com
Sepetmber 15, 2022
Mr. Michael O’Shaughnessy
President/CEO
BOE Midstream
8301 E. 21st Street North, Suite 420
Wichita, KS 67206
Re: CPF 3-2021-051-NOPV
Dear Mr. O’Shaughnessy:
On August 18, 2022, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to BOE Midstream, LLC a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included
a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the documentation
you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that BOE
Midstream, LLC has complied with the terms of this Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Gregory A. Ochs
Director, Central Region, OPS
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: Brandon McDowell, Director – ND Operations & Regulatory Compliance,
BMcDowell@BOEMidstream.com

32021051NOPV_Final Order_08182022_(21-200403)_text.pdf

August 18, 2022
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: mos@everdesk.com
Mr. Michael O’Shaughnessy
President
BOE Midstream, LLC
8301 East 21st Street North, Suite 420
Wichita, Kansas 67206
Re: CPF No. 3-2021-051-NOPV
Dear Mr. O’Shaughnessy:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation and assesses a reduced civil penalty of $42,100. It further finds that BOE Midstream,
LLC, has completed the actions specified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations. When the civil penalty has been paid, this enforcement action will be closed.
Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission and
acknowledgement of receipt as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosures (Final Order)
cc: Mr. Gregory Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. John Wadsworth, Chief Operating Officer, BOE Midstream, LLC,
jwadsworth@boemidstream.com



Mr. Brandon McDowell, Director, ND Operations & Regulatory Compliance, BOE
Midstream, LLC, bmcdowell@boemidstream.com
Mr. Levent Kilic, General Manager, BOE Pipelines and LL Terminals, BOE Midstream,
LLC, lkilic@boemidstream.com
CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
BOE Midstream, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2021-051-NOPV
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On January 26, March 10-12, March 29-31, April 6, and April 21-22, 2021, pursuant to 49
U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site and virtual pipeline safety
inspection of the facilities and records of BOE Midstream, LLC (BOE or Respondent) in
Dickinson and Killdeer, North Dakota. BOE operates pipelines with a nominal diameter of 16
inches and 20 inches that transport crude oil from numerous sources in a two-county area. The
crude oil pipeline originates at a pump station near Killdeer, North Dakota and terminates at a
rail terminal near Dickinson, North Dakota. BOE’s pipeline system is 38.3 miles long from
Killdeer to Dickinson.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated November 10, 2021, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and
Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice
proposed finding that BOE had violated the pipeline safety regulations in 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and
proposed assessing a civil penalty of $61,700 for the alleged violations. The Notice also
proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
BOE responded to the Notice by letter dated December 10, 2021, and supplemented this
response on February 4 and February 22, 2022 (Responses). BOE contested several of the
allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested that the
proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing and
therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(c), which states:
§ 195.440 Public awareness.
1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (November 10, 2021) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.



(a) . . . .
(c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations,
including baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless
the operator provides justification in its program or procedural manual as to
why compliance with all or certain provisions of the recommended practice
is not practicable and not necessary for safety.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(c) by failing to follow the
general program recommendations, including baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP
1162. Specifically, the Notice alleged that BOE failed to include each of the required
stakeholder audiences in the 2019 four-year effectiveness review as required by section 8.4 of
API RP 1162.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based on a review of the
evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(c) by failing to follow the general
program recommendations, including baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(c), which states:
§ 195.440 Public awareness.
(a) . . . .
(c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations,
including baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless
the operator provides justification in its program or procedural manual as to
why compliance with all or certain provisions of the recommended practice
is not practicable and not necessary for safety.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(c) by failing to follow the
general program recommendations, including baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP
1162. Specifically, the Notice alleged that BOE failed to follow section 8.4.4 of API RP 1162
which requires operators to determine if the implementation of the Public Awareness Program is
impacting bottom-line results (such as a reduction in the number of incidents caused by third-
party damage).
In its Responses, BOE stated that it tracks the number of incidents and consequences caused by
third-party excavators. It further stated that there were no third-party incidents on the pipeline
since it took over the pipeline in 2017. Therefore, BOE asserted, there were no related leaks,
damage, or pipeline failures to document, or subsequent data to compare to segment statistics.
BOE also suggested that it has the discretion to follow the recommendations in API 1162 section
8.4.4, such as whether to consider the affected public’s perception of the safety of its pipelines.
2
Section 195.440(c) states that “operator[s] must follow the general program recommendations,
including baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162.” Thus, it is incorrect for
Respondent to suggest that it is not required to comply with the recommendations in API 1162
section 8.4.4. All recommendations in API 1162 must be followed by operators, unless proper
2 Section 8.4.4 of API 1162 states that “[o]ne other measure that operators may consider is the affected public’s
perception of the safety of pipelines.”



justification is provided. Further, even if there were no third-party incidents on the pipeline
since BOE began operation, Respondent must, at a minimum, use that information to determine
if implementation of the Public Awareness Program is impacting bottom-line results.
Accordingly, based on a review of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.440(c) by failing to follow the general program recommendations, including baseline and
supplemental requirements of API RP 1162.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(g), which states:
§ 195.440 Public awareness.
(a) . . . .
(g) The program must be conducted in English and in other languages
commonly understood by a significant number and concentration of the
non-English speaking population in the operator’s area.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(g) by failing to follow its
written public awareness plan that requires a language survey every five years to identify
languages commonly understood by a significant number and concentration of the non-English
speaking population in the operator’s area. Specifically, the Notice alleged that BOE failed to
conduct the required language survey due in 2019. The Notice also alleged that BOE admitted it
failed to conduct the required language survey.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based on a review of the
evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(g) by failing to follow its written
public awareness plan that requires a language survey every five years.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l)(1)(ii), which states:
§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(a) . . . .
(l) What records must an operator keep to demonstrate compliance?
(1) An operator must maintain, for the useful life of the pipeline, records
that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this subpart. At a
minimum, an operator must maintain the following records for review
during an inspection:
(i) . . . .
(ii) Documents to support the decisions and analyses, including any
modifications, justifications, deviations and determinations made,
variances, and actions taken, to implement and evaluate each element of the
integrity management program listed in paragraph (f) of this section.



The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l)(1)(ii) by failing to maintain
records that indicate it implemented and followed its Integrity Management Program (IMP)
requirements for annual calculation of specified performance measures. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that BOE failed to maintain records of the performance measures as required by Element
7 of its IMP for 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. The Notice included a table of each missing record
for 2017 through 2020.
In its Responses, Respondent provided additional documentation regarding some of the missing
records. This information is considered below as it relates to the amount of the proposed civil
penalty. Otherwise, Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based
on a review of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l)(1)(ii) by
failing to maintain records that indicate it implemented and followed its IMP requirements for
annual calculation of specified performance measures.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(iii)(E), which
states:
§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(a) . . . .
(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues? -
(1) . . . .
(4) Special requirements for scheduling remediation -
(i) . . . .
(iii) 180-day conditions. Except for conditions listed in paragraph
(h)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section, an operator must schedule evaluation and
remediation of the following within 180 days of discovery of the condition:
(A) . . . .
(E) An area of general corrosion with a predicted metal loss greater than
50% of nominal wall.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(iii)(E) by failing to
schedule and remediate a 180-day condition within 180 days of discovery of the condition.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that data from a January 22, 2020 in-line inspection (ILI) run on
BOE’s 16-inch segment of its pipeline revealed a 55.18% metal loss feature (Feature 218)
located on bore pipe in the 1:00 position. BOE discovered this condition on March 26, 2020.
This feature qualifies as a 180-day condition under § 195.452(h)(4)(iii)(E). As of May 7, 2021,
this feature had not been remediated. The Notice further alleged that BOE explained that the
remediation had not occurred within the required 180-day time period because that segment of
pipe is buried 26-feet deep and requires an engineering analysis on how to remediate the
identified feature. In addition, the Notice alleged that BOE failed to notify PHMSA that it was
unable to meet the 180-day remediation requirement for Feature 218 as required by
§ 195.452(h)(3).3
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based on a review of the
3 Section 195.452(h)(3) states that “[i]f an operator cannot meet the schedule for any condition, the operator must
explain the reasons why it cannot meet the schedule and how the changed schedule will not jeopardize public safety
or environmental protection.” In addition, § 195.452(h)(1)(i) provides that “[a]n operator must notify PHMSA . . . if
the operator cannot meet the schedule for evaluation and remediation required under paragraph (h)(3) . . . .”



evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(iii)(E) by failing to schedule
and remediate a 180-day condition within 180 days of discovery of the condition.
Item 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l)(1)(ii), which states:
§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(a) . . . .
(l) What records must an operator keep to demonstrate compliance?
(1) An operator must maintain, for the useful life of the pipeline, records
that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this subpart. At a
minimum, an operator must maintain the following records for review
during an inspection:
(i) . . . .
(ii) Documents to support the decisions and analyses, including any
modifications, justifications, deviations and determinations made,
variances, and actions taken, to implement and evaluate each element of the
integrity management program listed in paragraph (f) of this section.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l)(1)(ii) by failing to maintain
records that demonstrate compliance with § 195.452(f). Specifically, the Notice alleged that
BOE failed to maintain records documenting (a) the basis of its decision for a reassessment
interval of five years; (b) the consideration of facility threats and facility preventative and
mitigative measures in its joint risk analysis of line pine and facilities; and (c) its emergency flow
restricting devices (EFRD) determination.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation as to parts (b) and (c) of this Item and
provided additional documentation with regard to part (a). In a written recommendation for final
action, submitted pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Region Director recommended withdrawing
the allegation of violation set forth in part (a). Accordingly, based on a review of the evidence, I
find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l)(1)(ii) by failing to maintain records that
demonstrate compliance with § 195.452(f) as set forth in parts (b) and (c) of this Item. The
allegation of violation in part (a) is withdrawn.
Item 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e), which states:
§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(a) . . . .
(e) Corrective action. You must correct any identified deficiency in
corrosion control as required by § 195.401(b). However, if the deficiency
involves a pipeline in an integrity management program under § 195.452,
you must correct the deficiency as required by § 195.452(h).
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e) by failing to correct
identified deficiencies in corrosion control as required by § 195.401(b). Specifically, the Notice
alleged that BOE failed to repair inoperable test stations (cathodic protection test leads connected
to the pipe and held above ground in a stand) 965 and 1729 within a reasonable time. The Notice
further alleged that BOE failed to repair the inoperable test stations, discovered on December 3,



2017, during the annual cathodic protection survey, until May 7, 2019, which was 520 days (17
months) after discovery of the condition.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based on a review of the
evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e) by failing to repair inoperable
test stations 965 and 1729 within a reasonable time.
Item 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.581(b), which states:
§ 195.581 Which pipelines must I protect against atmospheric
corrosion and what coating material may I use?
(a) . . . .
(b) Coating material must be suitable for the prevention of atmospheric
corrosion.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.581(b) by failing to use a coating
material suitable for the prevention of atmospheric corrosion on its pipeline. Specifically, the
Notice alleged that BOE used Polyguard RD-6 as transition zone wraps (corrosion protection at
soil-air interfaces) at various locations on its pipeline, but failed to coat the wraps with an
ultraviolet light protection paint to protect it from ultraviolet light deterioration, which is
identified in the manufacturer’s installation recommendation on the Polyguard RD-6 product
data sheet. In addition, the Notice alleged that BOE failed to coat the transition zones at the
discharge of both the main and booster pump stations at Killdeer with a coating suitable for
transition zones.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based on a review of the
evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.581(b) by failing to use a coating
material suitable for the prevention of atmospheric corrosion on its pipeline.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.4
In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I
must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,
including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history
of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue
doing business; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to discovery by PHMSA.
4 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.



In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction
because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice
proposed a total civil penalty of $61,700 for the violations cited above.
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $19,000 for Respondent's violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.440(c), for failing to follow the general program recommendations, including baseline and
supplemental requirements of API RP 1162. Respondent asserted that the civil penalty should be
reduced or withdrawn because it is excessive in light of its pipeline never having third-party
incidents. Having considered Respondent's argument, I find that it does not warrant a reduction
to the penalty. The proposed penalty was already based on the violation minimally affecting
pipeline safety and I find the other penalty assessment criteria appropriate reflect the facts
presented. S
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $19,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(c).
Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $16,500 for Respondent's violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.452(1)(1)(11), for failing to maintain records that indicate it implemented and followed its
Integrity Management Program (IMP) requirements for annual calculation of specified
performance measures. The proposed civil penalty was based, in part, on four instances of
violation reflecting the four years in which records were missing from 2017-2020. Respondent
argued that the civil penalty should be reduced because it provided documentation for some of
the missing IMP performance measures.
With respect to the number of instances of the violation, BOE stated it reviewed the IMP
performance measures for 2020 and that measures 10, 11, 12, and 15, as identified in the Notice,
were not applicable for 2020. It further stated that for measure 5, as identified in the Notice, it
would document a 2020 analysis. BOE also stated that it completed another review of its
performance measures for 2017 to 2020; that for measures 10, 11, 12 and 15 there were no
reportable leaks or non-reportable leaks on the pipelines in question since 2017; and that all these
measures would be "0" for 2017 to 2020. BOE further stated that for measure 5, the Root Cause
Failure Analysis program is only activated in the event of failure as described in section 7.7 of its
IMP, and that, as there were no failures, the Root Cause Analysis Failure program was not
activated from 2017-2020; therefore, this measure would also be 0 for those years.
The following table reflects the updated information, in bold, provided by BOE in its Responses.
#
Measure and Goal Description
2017
2018
2019
2020
Measure number of IM program activities with
goal to ensure processes are monitored.
Missing
Completed
Missing
Completed
completed and IM program improvements are
implemented. (meetings and completed IMP
2
action items)
easure the effectiveness of the PA program
vith the goal of zero (0) leaks due the third
Missing
Completed
Missing
Completed
party damage.
5 Violation Report at 11-15.



3 Measure number of action items from internal
audits with goal to ensure processes are
monitored, completed and IM program
improvements are implemented.
4 Measure number of action items from external
audits with goal to ensure processes are
monitored, completed and IM program
improvements are implemented.
5 Measure root cause failure analysis program for
systematic problems to ensure processes are
monitored, completed, and IM program
improvements are implemented.
6 Measure number of annual CP surveys
readings below 850 mV criteria to ensure
processes are monitored, completed, and IM
program improvements are implemented.
7 Measure pipeline patrol reports with no "One
Call" notifications to ensure processes are
monitored, completed, and IM program
improvements are implemented.
8 Measure number of exposed pipe reports to
ensure processes are monitored, completed,
and IM program improvements are
implemented.
9 Measure number of hydro test leaks to ensure
processes are monitored, completed, and IM
program improvements are implemented.
Missing Missing Missing Completed
Missing Missing Missing Completed
Provided Provided Provided Provided
Missing Missing Missing Completed
Missing Missing Missing Completed
Missing Missing Missing Completed
Missing Missing Missing Completed
10 11 12 13 14 15 Measure number of reportable leaks (i.e., leaks
greater than 5 bbl to land) to ensure processes
are monitored, completed, and IM program
improvements are implemented.
Measure number of leaks due to corrosion to
ensure processes are monitored, completed,
and IM program improvements are
implemented.
Measure number of leaks due to third party
damage to ensure processes are monitored,
completed, and IM program improvements are
implemented.
Measure number of miles of pipeline assessed
to ensure processes are monitored, completed,
and IM program improvements are
implemented.
Number of anomalies found requiring repair or
mitigation to ensure processes are monitored,
completed, and IM program improvements are
implemented.
Leaks due to equipment failure. Provided Provided Provided Provided
Provided Provided Provided Provided
Provided Provided Provided Provided
Missing Missing Missing Completed
Missing Missing Missing Completed
Provided Provided Provided Provided
As evident from the table, BOE did not provide documentation for numerous measures. For
2017, it is missing measures 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, and 14. For 2018, it is missing measures 3,
4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, and 14. For 2019, it is missing measures 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, and 14. BOE
completed all measures for 2020. Accordingly, I find a reduction in the instances of allegation
from four to three is warranted because BOE provided the missing documentation for 2020.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $16,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l)(1)(ii).
Item 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $6,900 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.



§ 195.452(h)(4)(iii)(E), for failing to schedule and remediate a 180-day condition within 180
days of discovery of the condition. Respondent requested reduction of the civil penalty for two
reasons.
With respect to circumstances, Respondent asserted the civil penalty should be reduced because
it self-reported the violation. However, Respondent already received credit for self-reporting this
violation in the initial proposed civil penalty calculation. Therefore, no further reduction is
warranted for Respondent’s self-reporting.
With respect to good faith, Respondent asserted the civil penalty should be reduced because it
was unable to remediate the condition within 180 days. Respondent contended that it discovered
the condition during winter and needed to conduct an engineering dig. This is not a reasonable
justification for non-compliance. An operator must complete remediation of a condition
according to the specified schedule and § 195.452(h)(1)(i) and (h)(3) require an operator notify
PHMSA if it is unable to remediate a 180-day condition within the required time. Respondent
failed to notify PHMSA it was unable to remediate this deficiency and provided no reasonable
justification for its failure to do so. Therefore, I do not find reason to reduce the penalty under
the good faith factor.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $6,900 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4)(iii)(E).
Item 7: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $19,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.573(e), for failing to correct identified deficiencies in corrosion control within a reasonable
time as required by § 195.401(b). Respondent requested a reduction of the civil penalty.
With respect to culpability, Respondent asserted the civil penalty should be reduced because it
identified and corrected the violation in March 2019 before PHMSA’s inspection. I find that the
Violation Report was incorrectly marked with respect to culpability. It should have been marked
“After the operator found the non-compliance, the operator took documented action to address
the cause of the non-compliance, and corrected the non-compliance before PHMSA learned of
the violation. (Does not apply to operator post-accident/incident enforcement actions.).”6
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the updated assessment criteria, I
reduce the proposed civil penalty to $0 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e).
7
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $42,100.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days after receipt of this Final Order.
6 Violation Report, at 46.
7 In its written recommendation for final action, the Region Director stated that if the civil penalty is reduced to a de
minimis amount, the violation should be changed to a warning item. The appropriate disposition, however, is not to
change the violation, but to reduce the civil penalty to $0. See, e.g., Flint Hills Resources, CPF No. 3-2020-5021,
2021 WL 4055259, Item 1 (Aug. 23, 2021); Tallgrass Energy Partners, LP, CPF No. 3-2020-1008, 2021 WL
4055256, Item 2 (Jul. 2, 2021).



Federal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer
through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S.
Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire
transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation
Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
Failure to pay the $42,100 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate
in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 in the Notice
for violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.440(c), 195.440(c), 195.440(g), 195.452(l)(1)(ii),
195.452(l)(1)(ii), 195.581(b), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who
engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is
required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The
Director indicates that Respondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed
compliance order:
1. With respect to the violation of § 195.440(c) (Item 1), Respondent has conducted
an effectiveness evaluation of the affected public audience in its August 2021 Public
Awareness Effectiveness Evaluation and provided supporting documentation.
2. With respect to the violation of § 195.440(c) (Item 2), Respondent has measured
bottom line results as required by section 8.4.4 of API 1162 and provided supporting
documentation.
3. With respect to the violation of § 195.440(g) (Item 3), Respondent has conducted
a language survey and provided supporting documentation.
4. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(l)(1)(ii) (Item 4), Respondent has
completed the 2020 IMP performance measure calculation and provided supporting
documentation.
5. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(l)(1)(ii) (Item 6), Respondent has
provided records documenting (i) the basis of its decision for a reassessment interval
of five years; (ii) the consideration of facility threats and facility preventative and
mitigative measures in its joint risk analysis of line pine and facilities; and (iii) the
summary, conclusions, and recommendations from the EFRD study.
6. With respect to the violation of § 195.581(b) (Item 8), Respondent has provided



records indicating it has (i) coated the Polyguard RD-6 used as transition zone wrap
to protect it from ultraviolet light deterioration as required by the product data sheet;
(ii) coated the transition zones at the discharge of both the main and booster pumps at
the Killdeer station with a wrap suitable for the prevention of atmospheric corrosion;
and (iii) adequately protected the carrier pipe from contact with the supports at both
the Killdeer main and booster pump stations.
Accordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations.
Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final
Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of
Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. The written petition must be received no later than
20 days after receipt of the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a
brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing
of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of
the order, including any corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator,
upon request, grants a stay. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order
becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
August 18, 2022
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 35377