{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 32024004NOPV","title":"VANTAGE PIPELINE US LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2024-03-01","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.446(a), 195.446(c)(1), 195.446(c)(2), 195.446(c)(3), 195.446(c)(4), 195.446(d)(3), 195.446(e)(2), 195.446(e)(3), 195.446(e)(4), 195.446(e)(5), 195.446(h)(6), 195.505(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32024004nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32024004nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32024004nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/32024004NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving VANTAGE PIPELINE US LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.446(a),  195.446(c)(1),  195.446(c)(2),  195.446(c)(3),  195.446(c)(4),  195.446(d)(3),  195.446(e)(2),  195.446(e)(3),  195.446(e)(4),  195.446(e)(5),  195.446(h)(6),  195.505(b). The case was opened on 2024-03-01 and is reported as closed as of 2025-05-14. Proposed civil penalty: $136,500. Assessed civil penalty: $136,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n32024004NOPV_Closure Letter_05142025_(22-240209).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024004NOPV/32024004NOPV_Closure%20Letter_05142025_(22-240209).pdf\n\n32024004NOPV_Closure Letter_05142025_(22-240209)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024004NOPV/32024004NOPV_Closure%20Letter_05142025_(22-240209)_text.pdf\n\n32024004NOPV_Final Order_09242024_(22-240209).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024004NOPV/32024004NOPV_Final%20Order_09242024_(22-240209).pdf\n\n32024004NOPV_Final Order_09242024_(22-240209)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024004NOPV/32024004NOPV_Final%20Order_09242024_(22-240209)_text.pdf\n\n32024004NOPV_Operator Response to Notice and Request Time Extension and Request Case File_03292024_(22-240209).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024004NOPV/32024004NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20Time%20Extension%20and%20Request%20Case%20File_03292024_(22-240209).pdf\n\n32024004NOPV_PCP PCO_03012024_(22-240209).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024004NOPV/32024004NOPV_PCP%20PCO_03012024_(22-240209).pdf\n\n32024004NOPV_PCP PCO_03012024_(22-240209)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024004NOPV/32024004NOPV_PCP%20PCO_03012024_(22-240209)_text.pdf\n\n32024004NOPV_Final Order_09242024_(22-240209)_text.pdf\n\nSeptember 24, 2024\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: sburrows@pembina.com\nScott Burrows\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nPembina Cochin, LLC\n4000, 585-8th Avenue S.W.\nCalgary, Alberta, Canada T2P1G1\nRe: CPF No. 3-2024-004-NOPV\nDear Mr. Burrows:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $136,500, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nPembina Cochin, LLC, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment\nterms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the\ncompliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Central Region, this enforcement\naction will be closed. Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the date of\ntransmission and acknowledgement of 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 Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Bob Bachmeier, Specialist, Regulatory, Pembina Cochin, LLC,\nbbachmeier@pembina.com\n\n\n\nMs. Heather Christie-Burns, Vice President, Transmission Pipelines, Pembina Cochin, LLC,\nhcburns@pembina.com\nMr. Scott Seibert, Manager, Regulatory & Environment, US Operations, Pembina Cochin,\nLLC, sseibert@pembina.com\nMr. Jeff Finch, Senior Advisor, Regulatory, Pembina Cochin, LLC,\njfinch@pembina.com\nMs. Amanda Kennedy, Manager, Pipeline Control Centre, Pembina Cochin, LLC,\nakennedy@pembina.com\nMr. Pete Marquart, Manager, U.S. Pipeline District, Pembina Cochin, LLC,\npmarquart@pembina.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 )\nPembina Cochin, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2024-004-NOPV\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom August 15 through September 28, 2022, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Pembina Cochin, LLC’s (Pembina or\nRespondent) records and procedures for Control Room Management (CRM) in Edmonton,\nAlberta, Canada. PHMSA also reviewed the records of Vantage Pipeline US, LP (Vantage), a\nsubsidiary of Pembina Cochin, LLC.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated March 1, 2024, 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 Pembina had committed eight violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, proposed\nassessing a civil penalty of $136,500 for the alleged violations, and proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also included\nan additional four warning items pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, which warned the operator to\ncorrect the probable violations or face possible future enforcement action.\nPembina responded to the Notice by letter dated March 29, 2024 (Response). The company did\nnot contest the allegations of violation and agreed to complete the proposed compliance actions\nbut requested additional time to carry out certain terms of the compliance order. Respondent did\nnot request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Pembina did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 195, as follows:\n1 Vantage controls Vantage Pipeline and Vantage Pipeline is controlled by the Pembina control room.\n\n\n\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 implement\nAPI RP 1165 for its supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system that became\noperational on November 1, 2017. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Pembina commissioned a\nnew SCADA system in November 2017, but did not have a CRM Plan for its US assets until\nDecember 17, 2018.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(1) by failing to\nimplement API RP 1165 for its added SCADA system.\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\npoint-to-point verifications. Specifically, the Notice alleged that a review of a point-to-point\nverification record for Vantage West Block Valve 2 provided three spreadsheets which were\ninadequate and failed to accurately include safety related tags or document whether point-to-\npoint verification was done under live or simulated conditions.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(2) by failing to conduct\npoint-to-point verifications.\n\n\n\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.446(c)(3), 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(3) Test and verify an internal communication plan to provide\nadequate means for manual operation of the pipeline safely, at least once\neach calendar 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 safely, at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Pembina did not have a procedure for an internal\ncommunication plan and that such a plan was never tested and verified per § 195.446(c)(3).\nConsequently, Pembina failed to test an internal communication plan for the safe manual\noperation of the pipeline in 2019, 2020, and 2021, exceeding the timeline mandated in\n§ 195.446(c)(3) of testing and verifying at least once each calendar year, with intervals not to\nexceed 15 months.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(3) by failing to test and\nverify an internal communication plan for the safe operation of the pipeline.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(4), 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(4) Test any backup SCADA systems at least once each calendar year,\nbut at intervals not to exceed 15 months;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(4) by failing to test its\nbackup control room system at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15\nmonths. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to test its backup system in 2020\ndue to complications with COVID-19 (COVID). Per the March 20, 2020, “Notice of Stay of\nEnforcement and Notice of Enforcement Discretion to Operators Affected by the Coronavirus\n(COVID-19) Outbreak,” operators were informed that any noncompliance due to COVID must\n\n\n\nbe promptly documented and PHMSA must be promptly notified, both of which Pembina failed\nto do.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(4) by failing to test its\nbackup control room system in 2020.\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(2), 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:\n(1) . . . .\n(2) Identify at least once each calendar month points affecting safety\nthat have been taken off scan in the SCADA host, have had alarms inhibited,\ngenerated false alarms, or that have had forced or manual values for periods\nof time exceeding that required for associated maintenance or operating\nactivities;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(2) by failing to identify at\nleast once each calendar month points affecting safety that have been taken off scan in the\nSCADA host, have had alarms inhibited, generated false alarms, or that have had forced or\nmanual values for periods of time exceeding that required for associated maintenance or\noperating activities. Specifically, the Notice alleged that for the years 2019, 2020, and 2021,\nRespondent failed to follow its procedures for collecting and reviewing safety-related points in\nSCADA, false alarms, and determining if forced or manual value time periods exceeded\npermissible limits. In addition, the Notice alleged that while the procedure made statements\ndirecting controllers to conduct the monthly review, it lacked detail necessary to ensure\ncompliance.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(2) by failing to identify\nat least once each calendar month points affecting safety that have been taken off scan in the\nSCADA host, have had alarms inhibited, generated false alarms, or that have had forced or\nmanual values for periods of time exceeding that required for associated maintenance or\noperating activities.\nItem 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(4), 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:\n\n\n\n(1) . . . .\n(4) Review the alarm management plan required by this paragraph at\nleast once each calendar year, but at intervals not exceeding 15 months, to\ndetermine the effectiveness of the plan;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(4) by failing to review its\nAlarm Management Plan to determine effectiveness at least once each calendar year, with\nintervals not to exceed 15 months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the 2019 review was\ncompleted on March 15, 2019, and the 2020 review was completed on December 4, 2020, which\nexceeds time by 175 days. Additionally, the reviews completed in 2019 and 2020 were\ninsufficient by only providing “Yes” or “No” responses. Finally, Pembina did not complete a\nreview in 2021.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(4) by failing to review its\nAlarm Management Plan to determine effectiveness at least once each calendar year, with\nintervals not to exceed 15 months.\nItem 11: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(h)(6), which states:\n§ 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) . . . .\n(h) Training. Each operator must establish a controller training program\nand review the training program content to identify potential improvements\nat least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months.\nAn operator’s program must provide for training each controller to carry out\nthe roles and responsibilities defined by the operator. In addition, the\ntraining program must include the following elements:\n(1) . . . .\n(6) Control room team training and exercises that include both\ncontrollers and other individuals, defined by the operator, who would\nreasonably be expected to operationally collaborate with controllers\n(control room personnel) during normal, abnormal or emergency situations.\nOperators must comply with the team training requirements under this\nparagraph no later than January 23, 2018.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(h)(6) by failing to establish a\ncontroller training program that includes control room team training. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Pembina failed to identify those personnel who collaborate with controllers by\nJanuary 23, 2018, and Pembina failed to conduct team training by January 23, 2019.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(h)(6) by failing to establish\na controller training program that includes control room team training.\nItem 12: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b), which states:\n\n\n\n§ 195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks\nare qualified;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b) by failing to ensure through\nevaluation that an individual performing covered tasks was qualified under Respondent’s US\nOperator Qualification (OQ) program. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Pembina records\nindicated the relevant controller was qualified under the Canadian OQ plan in and around\nSeptember 2018, but under Pembina CRM section 4.2 it specifically states, “US Operators are\nqualified in accordance with the US OQ Program, not the Canadian TMQ.\"\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Post inspection, the operator provided\nqualification records that met the requirements of Respondent’s US OQ Plan and no further\naction was required. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b) by failing to qualify one controller under the US\nOQ program.\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 $136,500 for the violations cited above.\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $34,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.446(c)(3), for failing to test and verify an internal communication plan for the safe\noperation of the pipeline. Pembina neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence\nor argument justifying elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $34,200 for\n2 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223 for adjusted amounts.\n\n\n\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(3).\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $33,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.446(c)(4), for failing to test its backup control room system in 2020. Pembina neither\ncontested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying elimination of the\nproposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $33,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.446(c)(4).\nItem 9: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $33,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.446(e)(4), for failing to review its Alarm Management Plan to determine effectiveness for\nthe years 2021, 2020, and 2019. Pembina 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$33,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(4).\nItem 11: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $33,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 195.446(h)(6), for failing to establish a controller training program that includes control\nroom team training. Pembina neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or\nargument justifying elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $33,500 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(h)(6).\nItem 12: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $1,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.505(b), for failing to qualify one controller under the US OQ program. Pembina neither\ncontested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying elimination of the\nproposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $1,800 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $136,500.\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.\n\n\n\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2, 3, 4 and 7 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.446(c)(1), 195.446(c)(2), 195.446(c)(3) and 195.446(e)(2),\nrespectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of\nhazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601.\nIn its Response, Respondent agreed to complete the proposed compliance order but requested\nadditional time to carry out the compliance actions for Items 2, 3, and 4. In the Regional\nDirector’s written evaluation of the response material submitted pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the\nDirector recommended the additional time be granted. Accordingly, the terms of the compliance\norder for Items 2, 3, and 4 are 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\ncomplete an audit of the SCADA system against API RP 1165 (incorporated by\nreference, see § 195.3) and correct any deficiencies identified within 120 days of\nreceipt of the Final Order.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.446(c)(2) (Item 3), Respondent must amend\nits point-to-point verification procedure to provide a thorough verification process and\nthen conduct a point-to-point verification on Vantage Block Valve MP008, West Spur\nLateral WSL02, and Ottawa and Tampico within 120 days of receipt of the Final Order.\n3. With respect to the violation of § 195.446(c)(3) (Item 4), Respondent must develop\nan Internal Communication plan for safe manual operation of the pipeline and a\nprocedure to test the plan, and then test the plan within 120 days of receipt of the Final\nOrder.\n4. With respect to the violation of § 195.446(e)(2) (Item 7), Respondent must amend\nits procedure to demonstrate compliance and conduct the monthly review using the plan.\nPembina must provide to PHMSA three consecutive months of records of the monthly\nreviews that demonstrate compliance within 120 days of receipt of the Final Order.\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.\n\n\n\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nexceeding $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (see 49 C.F.R. § 190.223 for adjusted amounts), for\neach violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for\nappropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1, 6, 8 and 10, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195, but\nidentified them as warning items pursuant to § 190.205. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to have a CRM plan\napplicable to its regulated hazardous liquid pipeline facilities prior to the start of its US assets\noperation on November 1, 2017;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.446(d)(3) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow the\nprocedure in its Fatigue Risk Management Process Version 4, dated June 6, 2022, section\n5.1.2 by failing to have three controllers complete fatigue training annually with intervals not\nto exceed 15 months. Three controllers were identified as not completing fatigue training:\ntwo in 2020 and one in 2019;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(3) (Item 8) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to provide adequate\nrecords for 2019, 2020, and 2021, as required by § 195.446(j)(1) to demonstrate compliance\nwith verifying the correct safety-related alarm set point values and alarm descriptions when\nassociated field instruments were calibrated or changed at least once each calendar year with\nintervals not to exceed 15 months; and\n49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(5) (Item 10) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its\nprocedure for completing the controller work activity review. Specifically, section 3.9.2 IV\nof US ALM states, “[V]antage will perform an activity review 8 times each year.” In 2019\nonly four assessments were completed, and in 2021 the person-to-person activity monitoring\nwas not completed, as also required by section 3.9.2 IV.\nIf OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be\nsubject to future enforcement action.\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.\n\n\n\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nSeptember 24, 2024\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n32024004NOPV_Closure Letter_05142025_(22-240209)_text.pdf\n\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: sburrows@pembina.com; bbachmeier@pembina.com;\njfinch@pembina.com\nMay 14, 2025\nMr. Scott Burrows\nPresident and CEO\nPembina Cochin, LLC\n4000 585-8 Avenue SW\nCalgary, Alberta, Canada\nCPF 3-2024-004-NOPV\nDear Mr. Burrows:\nOn September 24, 2024, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Pembina Cochin, LLC (Pembina) a Final Order pursuant to 49 CFR § 190.213. This\nOrder included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the\ndocumentation provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined\nthat Pembina has complied with the terms of this Order.\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: Bob Bachmeier, Manager, Regulatory & Environment, US Ops, Pembina US,\nbbachmeier@pembina.com\nJeff Finch, Sr Advisor, Regulatory US, Pembina US, jfinch@pembina.com","truncated":false,"body_characters":30013}