{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 32023014NOPV","title":"BOARDWALK PETROCHEMICAL PIPELINE, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2023-07-27","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.444(b), 195.446(c)(1), 195.446(c)(2), 195.446(c)(3), 195.446(e), 195.446(h)(1), 195.446(h)(3).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32023014nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32023014nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32023014nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/32023014NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BOARDWALK PETROCHEMICAL PIPELINE, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.444(b),  195.446(c)(1),  195.446(c)(2),  195.446(c)(3),  195.446(e),  195.446(h)(1),  195.446(h)(3). The case was opened on 2023-07-27 and is reported as closed as of 2024-11-20. Proposed civil penalty: $16,700. Assessed civil penalty: $16,700. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n32023014NOPV_Closure Letter_11202024_(22-250434).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32023014NOPV/32023014NOPV_Closure%20Letter_11202024_(22-250434).pdf\n\n32023014NOPV_Closure Letter_11202024_(22-250434)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32023014NOPV/32023014NOPV_Closure%20Letter_11202024_(22-250434)_text.pdf\n\n32023014NOPV_Final Order_11092023_(22-250434).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32023014NOPV/32023014NOPV_Final%20Order_11092023_(22-250434).pdf\n\n32023014NOPV_Final Order_11092023_(22-250434)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32023014NOPV/32023014NOPV_Final%20Order_11092023_(22-250434)_text.pdf\n\n32023014NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_08242023_(22-250434).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32023014NOPV/32023014NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_08242023_(22-250434).pdf\n\n32023014NOPV_PCP PCO_07272023_(22-250434).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32023014NOPV/32023014NOPV_PCP%20PCO_07272023_(22-250434).pdf\n\n32023014NOPV_PCP PCO_07272023_(22-250434)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32023014NOPV/32023014NOPV_PCP%20PCO_07272023_(22-250434)_text.pdf\n\n32023014NOPV_Closure Letter_11202024_(22-250434)_text.pdf\n\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: Scott.Hallam@bwpipelines.com; tina.baker@bwpipelines.com\nNovember 20, 2024\nMr. Scott Hallam\nPresident and CEO\nBoardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC\n9 Greenway Plaza Suite 2800\nHouston, TX 77036\nRE: CPF 3-2023-014-NOPV\nDear Mr. Hallam:\nOn November 9, 2023, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC (Boardwalk) a Final Order in the above-\nreferenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based\non our review of the documentation provided by your staff and confirmation of payment of the\ncivil penalty, it has been determined that Boardwalk has complied with the terms of the Final\nOrder.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nGregory A. Ochs\nDirector, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Tina Baker, Manager, Compliance Services, Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC\n(tina.baker@bwpipelines.com)\n\n32023014NOPV_Final Order_11092023_(22-250434)_text.pdf\n\nNovember 9, 2023\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: stan.horton@bwpipelines.com\nStanley Horton\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nBoardwalk Pipelines, LP\n9 Greenway Plaza Suite 2800\nHouston, Texas 77046\nRe: CPF No. 3-2023-014-NOPV\nDear Mr. Horton:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws one of the\nallegations of violation, makes findings of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $16,700, and specifies\nactions that need to be taken by Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC, a subsidiary of Boardwalk\nPipelines, LP, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set\nforth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order\ncompleted, as determined by the Director, Central Region, this enforcement action will be closed.\nService of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement\nof receipt as provided under 49 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. Gregory A. Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMs. Tina Baker, Manager, Compliance Service, Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC,\ntina.baker@bwpipelines.com\nMr. Tony Rizk, Vice President, Technical Services, Boardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC,\ntony.rizk@bwpipelines.com\nCONFIRMATION OF 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 )\nBoardwalk Petrochemical Pipeline, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2023-014-NOPV\na subsidiary of Boardwalk Pipelines, LP, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n______________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom September 19 to September 23, 2022, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Boardwalk\nPetrochemical Pipeline, LLC (Boardwalk or Respondent) in Sulphur Springs, Louisiana.\nBoardwalk operates a control center which supports around 380 miles of hazardous liquid\npipelines and eight miles of gas transmission pipelines.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated July 27, 2023, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that Boardwalk had committed seven violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $16,700 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nBoardwalk responded to the Notice by letter dated August 24, 2023 (Response). Boardwalk\ncontested one of the allegations and offered additional information. Respondent did not request\na hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\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. § 195.444(b), which states:\n§ 195.444 Leak detection.\n(a) . . . .\n\n\n\n(b) General. A pipeline must have an effective system for detecting\nleaks in accordance with §§ 195.134 or 195.452, as appropriate. An\noperator must evaluate the capability of its leak detection system to protect\nthe public, property, and the environment and modify it as necessary to do\nso. At a minimum, an operator’s evaluation must consider the following\nfactors—length and size of the pipeline, type of product carried, the\nswiftness of leak detection, location of nearest response personnel, and leak\nhistory.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.444(b) by failing to evaluate the\ncapability of its leak detection system to protect the public, property, and the environment and\nmodify it as necessary to do so. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Boardwalk failed to\nconsider length and size of the pipeline, type of product carried, the swiftness of leak detection,\nlocation of nearest response personnel, leak history, and risk assessment results in its procedure.\nIn addition, the Notice alleged Boardwalk did not have procedures requiring evaluation and\nbenchmarking if assets are added or removed and did not establish a frequency for the leak\ndetection capability evaluation.\nIn its Response, Boardwalk did not contest this allegation of violation. Having reviewed the\nrecord, however, I note that under 195.134, a pipeline constructed prior to October 1, 2019, does\nnot have to comply with 195.444 until October 1, 2024. Respondent’s exhibits1 indicate that its\npipeline was constructed prior to October 1, 2019. Therefore, the pipeline was not required to be\nin compliance with 195.444 at the time of the inspection. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby\norder that Item 1 be withdrawn.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(1), which states:\n§ 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) . . . .\n(c) Provide adequate information. Each operator must provide its\ncontrollers with the information, tools, processes and procedures necessary\nfor the controllers to carry out the roles and responsibilities the operator has\ndefined by performing each of the following:\n(1) Implement API RP 1165 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3)\nwhenever a SCADA system is added, expanded or replaced, unless the\noperator demonstrates that certain provisions of API RP 1165 are not\npractical for the SCADA system used;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(1) by failing to provide a\nrecord that demonstrated it had implemented API RP 1165 whenever a supervisory control and\ndata acquisition (SCADA) system was added, expanded, or replaced. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Boardwalk failed to provide records demonstrating it had reviewed its screens and\nsystem functions in accordance with API RP 1165.\n1 See Respondent Exhibit 1A (1/19/2018), Exhibit 4B (5/11/2019).\n\n\n\nIn its Response, Boardwalk did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, after\nconsidering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(1) by\nfailing to provide a record that demonstrated it had implemented API RP 1165 whenever a\nSCADA system was added, expanded, or replaced.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(2), which states:\n§ 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) . . . .\n(c) Provide adequate information. Each operator must provide its\ncontrollers with the information, tools, processes and procedures necessary\nfor the controllers to carry out the roles and responsibilities the operator has\ndefined by performing each of the following:\n(1) . . . .\n(2) Conduct a point-to-point verification between SCADA displays and\nrelated field equipment when field equipment is added or moved and when\nother changes that affect pipeline safety are made to field equipment or\nSCADA displays;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(2) by failing to conduct a\npoint-to-point verification between SCADA displays and related field equipment when field\nequipment is added or moved and when other changes that affect pipeline safety are made to\nfield equipment of SCADA displays. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Boardwalk failed to\nconduct a point-to-point verification when it implemented a new SCADA system at the Sulphur\nSprings Control Room. Second, the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.446(c)(2) by failing to include a requirement in its procedures to verify the accuracy of\nvalues, alarm graphics, and messaging on all SCADA screens when conducting a point-to-point\nverification.\nIn its Response, Boardwalk contested this allegation of violation, in part, and submitted\ndocumentation showing that a point-to-point had been completed. Boardwalk did not contest the\nsecond allegation that it failed to include a requirement in its procedures to verify the accuracy of\nall SCADA screens when conducting a point-to-point.\nIn a recommendation for final action submitted pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Director\nrecommended withdrawing the violation of § 195.446(c)(2), in part, after consideration of the\nadditional documentation submitted related to the alleged failure to conduct a point-to-point\nverification. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 3 be withdrawn, in part, because\nBoardwalk submitted documentation showing that a point-to-point had been completed.\nHaving considered the evidence associated with the second allegation, which Respondent did not\ncontest, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(2) by failing to include a\nrequirement in its procedures to verify the accuracy of values, alarm graphics, and messaging on\nall SCADA screens when conducting a point-to-point verification.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(3), which states:\n\n\n\n§ 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) . . . .\n(c) Provide adequate information. Each operator must provide its\ncontrollers with the information, tools, processes and procedures necessary\nfor the controllers to carry out the roles and responsibilities the operator has\ndefined by performing each of the following:\n(1) . . . .\n(3) Test and verify an internal communication plan to provide adequate\nmeans for manual operation of the pipeline safely, at least once each\ncalendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(3) by failing to test and\nverify an internal communication plan to provide adequate means for manual operation of the\npipeline safety, at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Boardwalk failed to complete a test of the internal\ncommunication system for safe manual operation of the pipeline in calendar year 2020 and could\nnot provide records documenting a test claimed to be performed on May 11, 2019.\nIn its Response, Boardwalk did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, after\nconsidering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(3) by\nfailing to test and verify an internal communication plan to provide adequate means for manual\noperation of the pipeline safety, at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15\nmonths.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e), which states:\n§ 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) . . . .\n(e) Alarm management. Each operator using a SCADA system must\nhave a written alarm management plan to provide for effective controller\nresponse to alarms. An operator’s plan must include provisions to:\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e) by failing to have a written\nalarm management plan to provide for effective controller response to alarms. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that Boardwalk’s plan did not have consistency in alarm management because it,\nin part, relied on field personnel to determine what was monitored and the appropriate response\nlevel.\nIn its Response, Boardwalk did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, after\nconsidering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e) by failing\nto have a written alarm management plan to provide for effective controller response to alarms.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(h)(1), which states:\n§ 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) . . . .\n\n\n\n(h) Training. Each operator must establish a controller training\nprogram and review the training program content to identify potential\nimprovements at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed\n15 months. An operator’s program must provide for training each controller\nto carry out the roles and responsibilities defined by the operator. In\naddition, the training program must include the following elements:\n(1) Responding to abnormal operating conditions likely to occur\nsimultaneously or in sequence;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(h)(1) by failing to include\nresponding to abnormal operating conditions likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence in its\ncontroller training program. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Boardwalk failed to provide a\nlist or examples of abnormal operating conditions that could occur simultaneously or in sequence\nthat was used for training.\nIn its Response, Boardwalk did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, after\nconsidering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(h)(1) by\nfailing to include responding to abnormal operating conditions likely to occur simultaneously or\nin sequence in its controller training program.\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(h)(3), which states:\n§ 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) . . . .\n(h) Training. Each operator must establish a controller training\nprogram and review the training program content to identify potential\nimprovements at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed\n15 months. An operator’s program must provide for training each controller\nto carry out the roles and responsibilities defined by the operator. In\naddition, the training program must include the following elements:\n(1) . . . .\n(3) Training controllers on their responsibilities for communication\nunder the operator’s emergency response procedures;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(h)(3) by failing to train\ncontrollers on their responsibilities for communication under the operator’s emergency response\nprocedures. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Boardwalk failed to establish training for how\nthe leak detection system works and supports alarming to SCADA. The Notice further alleged\nthat Boardwalk did not provide directions or steps for a controller to take if a possible leak is\nidentified in Appendix 8 of the CRM Training Program. The Notice also stated Boardwalk\nfailed to provide controller training records related to leak detection.\nIn its Response, Boardwalk did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, after\nconsidering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(h)(3) by\nfailing to train controllers on their responsibilities for communication under the operator’s\nemergency response procedures.\n\n\n\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.2\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I\nmust consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue\ndoing business; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to discovery by PHMSA.\nIn addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction\nbecause of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice\nproposed a total civil penalty of $16,700 for the violations cited above.\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $16,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.446(c)(3) for failing to test and verify an internal communication plan to provide adequate\nmeans for manual operation of the pipeline safety, at least once each calendar year, but at\nintervals not to exceed 15 months. Boardwalk neither contested the allegation nor presented any\nevidence or argument justifying elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$16,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(3).\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days after receipt of this Final Order.\nFederal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer\nthrough the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S.\nTreasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire\ntransfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation\nAdministration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City,\nOklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in\naccordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those\nsame authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment\nis not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result\nin referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district court of the\nUnited States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\n2 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223 for adjusted amounts.\n\n\n\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 in the Notice\nfor violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.444(b), 195.446(c)(1), 195.446(c)(2), 195.446(e),\n195.446(h)(1), and 195.446(h)(3), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who\nengages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is\nrequired to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. As\ndiscussed above, Item 1 has been withdrawn. Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the\nNotice for that Item are not included in this Order. The Director has indicated that Respondent\nhas taken the following actions to address some of the cited violations:\nWith regard to the violation of § 195.446(c)(1) (Item 2), Respondent stated that it will conduct a\nfull audit of its SCADA screens and Style Guide against API RP 1165 and submit to PHMSA\nwithin 90 days of receipt of the Final Order. Accordingly, the terms of the proposed compliance\norder for Item 2 are included.\nWith respect to the violation of § 195.446(c)(2) (Item 3), as discussed above, Item 3 has been\nwithdrawn, in part. Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for that Item are\nrevised to remove the terms associated with completing point-to-point of the AVEVA Sulphur\nSprings SCADA system. The terms of the proposed compliance order for Item 3 associated with\nmodifying procedures are included.\nWith respect to the violation of § 195.446(e) (Item 5), Respondent stated it revised its procedures\nin MOC 2022-11-01 to document its established process for alarm rationalization. Having\nreviewed the revised procedures, further corrective action is required. The procedure did not\ndetail the process of how Boardwalk is going to rationalize alarms. Accordingly, the terms of the\nproposed compliance order for Item 5 are included.\nWith regard to the violation of § 195.446(h)(1) (Item 6), Respondent stated that it implemented\nits Liquids Control Trainer in late 2022. The syllabus for each scenario included a list of\nabnormal operating conditions likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence. Records were\nattached to the Response. Boardwalk further stated training with the Liquids Control Trainer\nwill be completed once each calendar year, not to exceed 15 months, by each Controller and\nControl Room Management. Boardwalk also requested clarification of the proposed compliance\norder, as the last sentence for Item 6, requiring utilization of the amended process to rationalize\nall alarms, repeated the requirement of Item 5, which also required alarm rationalization. I find\nRespondent provided adequate records of abnormal operations that could occur simultaneously\nor in sequence to support the training requirement. In addition, I agree the last sentence for Item\n6 was a typographical error. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent satisfied all compliance order requirements for Item 6. Therefore, it is not necessary\nto include the terms below.\nWith respect to the violation of § 195.446(h)(3) (Item 7), Respondent stated that the training\nrequirement is satisfied using Scenario #4 of the Liquids Control Trainer. Having reviewed the\nrevised procedures, further corrective action is required. Respondent must develop a training\nplan that includes all the topics covered in training controllers on leak detection, including how\n\n\n\nthe leak detection system works along with other SCADA indications related to identifying\nleaks, and controllers’ response to these presentations. The documentation provided by\nRespondent did not include this information. Accordingly, the terms of the proposed compliance\norder for Item 7 are included below.\nFor the above reasons, the Compliance Order is modified as set forth below.\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is\nordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations\napplicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.446(c)(1) (Item 2), Respondent must conduct an\naudit of its SCADA screens and style guide against API RP 1165 to identify compliance\nand deficiencies and correct those deficiencies, or demonstrate that certain provisions of\nAPI RP 1165 are not practical for the SCADA system used, within 90 days of receipt of\nthe Final Order.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.446(c)(2) (Item 3), Respondent must modify the\npoint-to-point procedure to include verification of all screens, verify all point values and\nstatus match, and verify the appropriate alarm conditions present such as “on/off,”\n“open/closed,” “local/remote,” in alarm with the correct priority, etc., within 120 days of\nreceipt of the Final Order.\n3. With respect to the violation of § 195.446(e) (Item 5), Respondent must develop an\nalarm rationalization process that supports a consistent method for determination of alarm\npriorities and set points to provide effective controller response to alarms, and utilize that\nprocess to rationalize all alarms within 120 days of receipt of the Final Order.\n4. With respect to the violation of § 195.446(h)(3) (Item 7), Respondent must develop\ntraining content to describe how the AVEVA system works to calculate the benchmark,\nhow the value is alarmed to SCADA, and how the controller must respond should the\nalarm present, and train controllers on this content within 60 days of receipt of the Final\nOrder.\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.\nPHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\n\n\n\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (see 49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\neach day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. The written petition must be received no later than\n20 days after receipt of the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a\nstatement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a\npetition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the\norder, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon\nrequest, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nNovember 9, 2023\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":28256}