WSP USA INC. — Notice of Probable Violation

420055041_finaloderclosure_02192008_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFU S Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration i 200 New Jersey Ave 5 E Washington DC 20590 FEB Z 92008 Mr. Raghu S. Raghuraman Vice President PB Energy Storage Services, Inc. 11757 Katy Freeway, Suite 600 Houston, TX 77079 Re: CPF No. 4-2005-5041 Dear Mr. Raghuraman: Enclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case, The Final Order withdraws the violation alleged in the Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty. Accordingly, this case is now closed. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service under 49 C. F. R. 5 190. 5. Sincerely, Jeffrey D. Wiese Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED#

420055041_finaloderclosure_02192008_text.pdf, page 2DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPEI INE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20590 In the Matter of PB Energy Storage Services, Inc. , Respondent CPF No. 4-2005-5041 FINAL ORDER On May 10 through 13, 2005, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. ) 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on- site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's integrity management program (IMP) in Houston, Texas. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated October 13, 2005, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had violated 49 C, F, R. $ 195. 452(b) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $5, 000 for the alleged violation, Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated November 7, 2005 (Response). Respondent contested the allegation of violation, offered information in explanation, and requested that the proposed civil penalty be eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing, and therefore has waived its right to one. WITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION Item 1 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. ) 195. 452(b), which states: g 195. 452 — Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas. (a) 8'hich pipelines are covered by this section? This section applies to each hazardous liquid pipeline and carbon dioxide pipeline that could affect a high consequence area. . . . Covered pipelines are categorized as follows;. . . (2) Category 2 includes pipelines existing on May 29, 2001, that were owned or operated by an operator who owned or operated less than 500 miles of pipeline subject to this part. . . , (b) 8%at program and practices must operators use to manage pipeline integrity? Each operator of a pipeline covered by this section must:#

420055041_finaloderclosure_02192008_text.pdf, page 3(1) Develop a written integrity management program that addresses the risks on each segment of pipeline in the first column of the following table not later than the date in the second column. . . Pi eline Date Cate o 2 Febru 18, 2003 (2) Include in the program an identification of each pipeline or pipeline segment in the first column of the following table not later than the date in the second column. . . Pi eline Cate or 2 Date November 18, 2002 The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 452(b) by failing to meet the deadlines in the integrity management rule for identification of covered segments and development of an IMP. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent acquired Category 2 pipeline facilities in April 2004, but did not identify covered segments or implement an IMP for those facilities until November 15, 2004. In its Response, Respondent acknowledged that it acquired the facilities in April 2004 and completed development of its IMP in November 2004. Respondent explained, however, that between April and November 2004 Respondent followed the IMP procedures of the prior operator. Respondent noted that its own IMP referenced the existence of the prior operator's IMP procedures and that documentation of the prior operator's program was available at the time of the inspection. Respondent submitted documentation of the prior operator's program as well as portions of its own IMP where the prior operator's program had been referenced. AAer reviewing the documentation submitted, I find that Respondent operated the pipeline facilities in question under the previous operator's IMP from April 2004 through November 2004, Based upon the foregoing, I am withdrawing the allegation of violation. The terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be effective upon receipt. FEB 1 9 2008 Date Issued Jeffrey D. iese Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#