# VANTAGE PIPELINE US LP — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

32024004NOPV_Closure Letter_05142025_(22-240209).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024004NOPV/32024004NOPV_Closure%20Letter_05142025_(22-240209).pdf

32024004NOPV_Closure Letter_05142025_(22-240209)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024004NOPV/32024004NOPV_Closure%20Letter_05142025_(22-240209)_text.pdf

32024004NOPV_Final Order_09242024_(22-240209).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024004NOPV/32024004NOPV_Final%20Order_09242024_(22-240209).pdf

32024004NOPV_Final Order_09242024_(22-240209)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024004NOPV/32024004NOPV_Final%20Order_09242024_(22-240209)_text.pdf

32024004NOPV_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

32024004NOPV_PCP PCO_03012024_(22-240209).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024004NOPV/32024004NOPV_PCP%20PCO_03012024_(22-240209).pdf

32024004NOPV_PCP PCO_03012024_(22-240209)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024004NOPV/32024004NOPV_PCP%20PCO_03012024_(22-240209)_text.pdf

32024004NOPV_Final Order_09242024_(22-240209)_text.pdf

September 24, 2024
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: sburrows@pembina.com
Scott Burrows
President and Chief Executive Officer
Pembina Cochin, LLC
4000, 585-8th Avenue S.W.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P1G1
Re: CPF No. 3-2024-004-NOPV
Dear Mr. Burrows:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a civil penalty of $136,500, and specifies actions that need to be taken by
Pembina Cochin, LLC, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment
terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the
compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Central Region, 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
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Gregory Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Bob Bachmeier, Specialist, Regulatory, Pembina Cochin, LLC,
bbachmeier@pembina.com



Ms. Heather Christie-Burns, Vice President, Transmission Pipelines, Pembina Cochin, LLC,
hcburns@pembina.com
Mr. Scott Seibert, Manager, Regulatory & Environment, US Operations, Pembina Cochin,
LLC, sseibert@pembina.com
Mr. Jeff Finch, Senior Advisor, Regulatory, Pembina Cochin, LLC,
jfinch@pembina.com
Ms. Amanda Kennedy, Manager, Pipeline Control Centre, Pembina Cochin, LLC,
akennedy@pembina.com
Mr. Pete Marquart, Manager, U.S. Pipeline District, Pembina Cochin, LLC,
pmarquart@pembina.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 )
Pembina Cochin, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2024-004-NOPV
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From August 15 through September 28, 2022, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Pembina Cochin, LLC’s (Pembina or
Respondent) records and procedures for Control Room Management (CRM) in Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada. PHMSA also reviewed the records of Vantage Pipeline US, LP (Vantage), a
subsidiary of Pembina Cochin, LLC.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated March 1, 2024, 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 Pembina had committed eight violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, proposed
assessing a civil penalty of $136,500 for the alleged violations, and proposed ordering
Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also included
an additional four warning items pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, which warned the operator to
correct the probable violations or face possible future enforcement action.
Pembina responded to the Notice by letter dated March 29, 2024 (Response). The company did
not contest the allegations of violation and agreed to complete the proposed compliance actions
but requested additional time to carry out certain terms of the compliance order. Respondent did
not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, Pembina did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.
Part 195, as follows:
1 Vantage controls Vantage Pipeline and Vantage Pipeline is controlled by the Pembina control room.



Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(1), which states:
§ 195.446 Control room management.
(a) . . . .
(c) Provide adequate information. Each operator must provide its
controllers with the information, tools, processes and procedures necessary
for the controllers to carry out the roles and responsibilities the operator has
defined by performing each of the following:
(1) Implement API RP 1165 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3)
whenever a SCADA system is added, expanded or replaced, unless the
operator demonstrates that certain provisions of API RP 1165 are not
practical for the SCADA system used;
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(1) by failing to implement
API RP 1165 for its supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system that became
operational on November 1, 2017. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Pembina commissioned a
new SCADA system in November 2017, but did not have a CRM Plan for its US assets until
December 17, 2018.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(1) by failing to
implement API RP 1165 for its added SCADA system.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(2), which states:
§ 195.446 Control room management.
(a) . . . .
(c) Provide adequate information. Each operator must provide its
controllers with the information, tools, processes and procedures necessary
for the controllers to carry out the roles and responsibilities the operator has
defined by performing each of the following:
(1) . . . .
(2) Conduct a point-to-point verification between SCADA displays and
related field equipment when field equipment is added or moved and when
other changes that affect pipeline safety are made to field equipment or
SCADA displays;
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(2) by failing to conduct
point-to-point verifications. Specifically, the Notice alleged that a review of a point-to-point
verification record for Vantage West Block Valve 2 provided three spreadsheets which were
inadequate and failed to accurately include safety related tags or document whether point-to-
point verification was done under live or simulated conditions.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(2) by failing to conduct
point-to-point verifications.



Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.446(c)(3), which states:
§ 195.446 Control room management.
(a) . . . .
(c) Provide adequate information. Each operator must provide its
controllers with the information, tools, processes and procedures necessary
for the controllers to carry out the roles and responsibilities the operator has
defined by performing each of the following:
(1) . . . .
(3) Test and verify an internal communication plan to provide
adequate means for manual operation of the pipeline safely, at least once
each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months;
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(3) by failing to test and
verify an internal communication plan to provide adequate means for manual operation of the
pipeline safely, at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Pembina did not have a procedure for an internal
communication plan and that such a plan was never tested and verified per § 195.446(c)(3).
Consequently, Pembina failed to test an internal communication plan for the safe manual
operation of the pipeline in 2019, 2020, and 2021, exceeding the timeline mandated in
§ 195.446(c)(3) of testing and verifying at least once each calendar year, with intervals not to
exceed 15 months.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(3) by failing to test and
verify an internal communication plan for the safe operation of the pipeline.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(4), which states:
§ 195.446 Control room management.
(a) . . . .
(c) Provide adequate information. Each operator must provide its
controllers with the information, tools, processes and procedures necessary
for the controllers to carry out the roles and responsibilities the operator has
defined by performing each of the following:
(1) . . . .
(4) Test any backup SCADA systems at least once each calendar year,
but at intervals not to exceed 15 months;
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(4) by failing to test its
backup control room system at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15
months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to test its backup system in 2020
due to complications with COVID-19 (COVID). Per the March 20, 2020, “Notice of Stay of
Enforcement and Notice of Enforcement Discretion to Operators Affected by the Coronavirus
(COVID-19) Outbreak,” operators were informed that any noncompliance due to COVID must



be promptly documented and PHMSA must be promptly notified, both of which Pembina failed
to do.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(4) by failing to test its
backup control room system in 2020.
Item 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(2), which states:
§ 195.446 Control room management.
(a) . . . .
(e) Alarm management. Each operator using a SCADA system must
have a written alarm management plan to provide for effective controller
response to alarms. An operator’s plan must include provisions to:
(1) . . . .
(2) Identify at least once each calendar month points affecting safety
that have been taken off scan in the SCADA host, have had alarms inhibited,
generated false alarms, or that have had forced or manual values for periods
of time exceeding that required for associated maintenance or operating
activities;
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(2) by failing to identify at
least once each calendar month points affecting safety that have been taken off scan in the
SCADA host, have had alarms inhibited, generated false alarms, or that have had forced or
manual values for periods of time exceeding that required for associated maintenance or
operating activities. Specifically, the Notice alleged that for the years 2019, 2020, and 2021,
Respondent failed to follow its procedures for collecting and reviewing safety-related points in
SCADA, false alarms, and determining if forced or manual value time periods exceeded
permissible limits. In addition, the Notice alleged that while the procedure made statements
directing controllers to conduct the monthly review, it lacked detail necessary to ensure
compliance.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(2) by failing to identify
at least once each calendar month points affecting safety that have been taken off scan in the
SCADA host, have had alarms inhibited, generated false alarms, or that have had forced or
manual values for periods of time exceeding that required for associated maintenance or
operating activities.
Item 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(4), which states:
§ 195.446 Control room management.
(a) . . . .
(e) Alarm management. Each operator using a SCADA system must
have a written alarm management plan to provide for effective controller
response to alarms. An operator’s plan must include provisions to:



(1) . . . .
(4) Review the alarm management plan required by this paragraph at
least once each calendar year, but at intervals not exceeding 15 months, to
determine the effectiveness of the plan;
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(4) by failing to review its
Alarm Management Plan to determine effectiveness at least once each calendar year, with
intervals not to exceed 15 months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the 2019 review was
completed on March 15, 2019, and the 2020 review was completed on December 4, 2020, which
exceeds time by 175 days. Additionally, the reviews completed in 2019 and 2020 were
insufficient by only providing “Yes” or “No” responses. Finally, Pembina did not complete a
review in 2021.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(4) by failing to review its
Alarm Management Plan to determine effectiveness at least once each calendar year, with
intervals not to exceed 15 months.
Item 11: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(h)(6), which states:
§ 195.446 Control room management.
(a) . . . .
(h) Training. Each operator must establish a controller training program
and review the training program content to identify potential improvements
at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months.
An operator’s program must provide for training each controller to carry out
the roles and responsibilities defined by the operator. In addition, the
training program must include the following elements:
(1) . . . .
(6) Control room team training and exercises that include both
controllers and other individuals, defined by the operator, who would
reasonably be expected to operationally collaborate with controllers
(control room personnel) during normal, abnormal or emergency situations.
Operators must comply with the team training requirements under this
paragraph no later than January 23, 2018.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(h)(6) by failing to establish a
controller training program that includes control room team training. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that Pembina failed to identify those personnel who collaborate with controllers by
January 23, 2018, and Pembina failed to conduct team training by January 23, 2019.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(h)(6) by failing to establish
a controller training program that includes control room team training.
Item 12: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b), which states:



§ 195.505 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.
The program shall include provisions to:
(a) . . . .
(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks
are qualified;
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b) by failing to ensure through
evaluation that an individual performing covered tasks was qualified under Respondent’s US
Operator Qualification (OQ) program. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Pembina records
indicated the relevant controller was qualified under the Canadian OQ plan in and around
September 2018, but under Pembina CRM section 4.2 it specifically states, “US Operators are
qualified in accordance with the US OQ Program, not the Canadian TMQ."
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Post inspection, the operator provided
qualification records that met the requirements of Respondent’s US OQ Plan and no further
action was required. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that
Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b) by failing to qualify one controller under the US
OQ program.
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.2
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.
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 $136,500 for the violations cited above.
Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $34,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.446(c)(3), for failing to test and verify an internal communication plan for the safe
operation of the pipeline. Pembina neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence
or argument justifying elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the
record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $34,200 for
2 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223 for adjusted amounts.



violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(c)(3).
Item 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $33,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.446(c)(4), for failing to test its backup control room system in 2020. Pembina neither
contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying elimination of the
proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment
criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $33,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.446(c)(4).
Item 9: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $33,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.446(e)(4), for failing to review its Alarm Management Plan to determine effectiveness for
the years 2021, 2020, and 2019. Pembina neither contested the allegation nor presented any
evidence or argument justifying elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having
reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of
$33,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(4).
Item 11: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $33,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49
C.F.R. § 195.446(h)(6), for failing to establish a controller training program that includes control
room team training. Pembina neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or
argument justifying elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the
record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $33,500 for
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(h)(6).
Item 12: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $1,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.505(b), for failing to qualify one controller under the US OQ program. Pembina neither
contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying elimination of the
proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment
criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $1,800 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b).
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 $136,500.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days after receipt of this Final Order.
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 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 2, 3, 4 and 7 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.446(c)(1), 195.446(c)(2), 195.446(c)(3) and 195.446(e)(2),
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.
In its Response, Respondent agreed to complete the proposed compliance order but requested
additional time to carry out the compliance actions for Items 2, 3, and 4. In the Regional
Director’s written evaluation of the response material submitted pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the
Director recommended the additional time be granted. Accordingly, the terms of the compliance
order for Items 2, 3, and 4 are modified as set forth below.
Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is
ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations
applicable to its operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 195.446(c)(1) (Item 2), Respondent must
complete an audit of the SCADA system against API RP 1165 (incorporated by
reference, see § 195.3) and correct any deficiencies identified within 120 days of
receipt of the Final Order.
2. With respect to the violation of § 195.446(c)(2) (Item 3), Respondent must amend
its point-to-point verification procedure to provide a thorough verification process and
then conduct a point-to-point verification on Vantage Block Valve MP008, West Spur
Lateral WSL02, and Ottawa and Tampico within 120 days of receipt of the Final Order.
3. With respect to the violation of § 195.446(c)(3) (Item 4), Respondent must develop
an Internal Communication plan for safe manual operation of the pipeline and a
procedure to test the plan, and then test the plan within 120 days of receipt of the Final
Order.
4. With respect to the violation of § 195.446(e)(2) (Item 7), Respondent must amend
its procedure to demonstrate compliance and conduct the monthly review using the plan.
Pembina must provide to PHMSA three consecutive months of records of the monthly
reviews that demonstrate compliance within 120 days of receipt of the Final Order.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
PHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs
associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is
requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with
preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with
replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.



Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
exceeding $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (see 49 C.F.R. § 190.223 for adjusted amounts), for
each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for
appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.
WARNING ITEMS
With respect to Items 1, 6, 8 and 10, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195, but
identified them as warning items pursuant to § 190.205. The warnings were for:
49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to have a CRM plan
applicable to its regulated hazardous liquid pipeline facilities prior to the start of its US assets
operation on November 1, 2017;
49 C.F.R. § 195.446(d)(3) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow the
procedure in its Fatigue Risk Management Process Version 4, dated June 6, 2022, section
5.1.2 by failing to have three controllers complete fatigue training annually with intervals not
to exceed 15 months. Three controllers were identified as not completing fatigue training:
two in 2020 and one in 2019;
49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(3) (Item 8) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to provide adequate
records for 2019, 2020, and 2021, as required by § 195.446(j)(1) to demonstrate compliance
with verifying the correct safety-related alarm set point values and alarm descriptions when
associated field instruments were calibrated or changed at least once each calendar year with
intervals not to exceed 15 months; and
49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e)(5) (Item 10) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its
procedure for completing the controller work activity review. Specifically, section 3.9.2 IV
of US ALM states, “[V]antage will perform an activity review 8 times each year.” In 2019
only four assessments were completed, and in 2021 the person-to-person activity monitoring
was not completed, as also required by section 3.9.2 IV.
If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be
subject to future enforcement action.
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
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 corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon
request, grants a stay.



The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
September 24, 2024
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

32024004NOPV_Closure Letter_05142025_(22-240209)_text.pdf

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: sburrows@pembina.com; bbachmeier@pembina.com;
jfinch@pembina.com
May 14, 2025
Mr. Scott Burrows
President and CEO
Pembina Cochin, LLC
4000 585-8 Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
CPF 3-2024-004-NOPV
Dear Mr. Burrows:
On September 24, 2024, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to Pembina Cochin, LLC (Pembina) a Final Order pursuant to 49 CFR § 190.213. This
Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the
documentation provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined
that Pembina 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, Office of Pipeline Safety
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: Bob Bachmeier, Manager, Regulatory & Environment, US Ops, Pembina US,
bbachmeier@pembina.com
Jeff Finch, Sr Advisor, Regulatory US, Pembina US, jfinch@pembina.com
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 30013