WBI ENERGY TRANSMISSION, INC. — Notice of Probable Violation

case documentOfficial PDFCPF_NO_5-2004-0007.pdf#

520040007_Final Order_04062005.pdf, page 1Official PDFu.s. DepaTmeflt of TrOnsPOffotlon PIpeline and Ha%G'dOUI Mmeltms Admlnl", w;-~ .. ~-;;-. -- 8.W. -:-~wI-.. D.C. ~ APR -6 m Mr. Tony J. FiDDemIn Executive Vice President Williston Basin Intentate Pipeline P.O. Box 5601 B~~ ND S8S06-S601 CmI.-ay RE: CPF No. S-2004-0007 De.' Mr. FiDDemm: EDCk»8ed is the FiDaI Order i-..ed by the AJlC»Ciate Adminiltrltor fcw: Pipeline Safety in the above-refereaa:-ecI cue. It mak~ fiDdinp of violation, UIaseI . civil penalty of S8.(XX), makes a findina of inadequate procedures and requires amendment of certain operating and maintenance procedures. The Final Order also apecifi~ actions to be taken to comply with the pipeline safety regulations aIMf revision of certain oper'8bng aIMf maintalllM:e P~\Ire5. The penalty paymmt terml8'e let fcxth in the Final (kder. Wba1 the civil pCllaity is paid aIxt the tams of the compliance order and lmaMlment ofprocedlU8 8e completed, 18 determined by the~. Western Region. this enforcement action will be cloled. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document \mder 49 C.F .R. § 190.S. SiIK:~lYt L;~ft~~~:~~.)...i4 J -- ReylM)Id8 r "Pipe) iDe ~~ Reliltry Office of Pipeline Safety ~1OIUre ~: Chris Ho~ Reaioa Directcx' Western Region, OPS CF.RTI:nF.D MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT UO~D#

520040007_Final Order_04062005.pdf, page 2DEP ARTMENT OF TRANSPORT A TION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY W ASWNGTON, DC 20590 In the Matter of \\I'illiston Basin Interstate Pipeline COmpaD}', Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) CPF No. 5-2004-0007 FINAL ORDER On October 20-23,2003 and December 8-11, 2003, pursuant to 49 V.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), Western Region, conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's Baker District and Glendive District facilities and records in Montana. As a result of the inspection, the Dircctor, Western Region, OPS, issued to R~pondent, by letter dated August 31, 2004, a Notice of Probable Violatio~ Prop'osed Civil Penalty. Proposed Compliance Order. and Notice of Amendment (Notice»). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had violated 49 C.F .R. Part 192. proposed assessing a civil penalty of 58,000 for the alleged violations and proposed that Respondent take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed, in Kcordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.237, that Respondent amend its procedures for Operatio~ Maintenance, and Emergencies. Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated, September 27, 2004 (Response). Respondent did not contest the allegations of violation but offered an explanation and provided infonnation concerning the corrective actions it has taken. Respondent did not request a hearing. and therefore has waived its right to one. FINDINGS OF VIOLADON (Uncontested) In its Response, Respondent did not contest the alleged violations in the Notice. Accordingly, I find that Rmpondent violated the following sections of 49 C.F .R. Part 192, as more fully described in the Notice: 'This cue, however, is DO 1OJIgcr before RSPA for deciaioa. E~ FcbIuIry 20, 2005, ~ PipetiJle and HIZanbJI MateriaJa Safety AdmiDi8llation (PHMSA) was created to fm1ber the biII-t degree of safety in pipeline traasportation aMi J.zIrdou8 a8tcria1s U---I"'~tion. See, section 1 08 of die N~ Y. MiDeta Relearch and Specia1 Pro~ ~VCDZDt Act (Public Law 108-426, 118 Stat. 2423-2429 (Novmmer 30,2004». See alao,10 Fed. Reg. 8299 (Febmary IS, 2003) rede)~ dE p~liDt 8fr,1y ~OIII to - ~~~tor, PHMSA.#

520040007_Final Order_04062005.pdf, page 3.2 49 C.F.R. § 192.161(a) - failing to properly anchor or support the meter set at the Fairview city gate, as the gate was not fastened to any supports and was resting on bricks. In addition, the meter set support at the Richey border station was WlStable and the bypass piping at both the Richey and Wolf Point border stations was resting directly on the ground and not adequately supported; 49 C.F.R. § 192.463 - failing to maintain a record in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that a COfi{)8ive condition does not exist, as a determination could not be made how voltage (IR) drops other than those across the structure electrolyte boundary were being considered for valid interpretation of the voltage measurement. Respondent's cathodic protection monitoring records also lacked sufficient detail to detemline the adequacy of the external corrosion control measures; 49 C.F.R. § 192.731(a) -- failing to test and inspect various pressure relief valves at the Vida Station once each calendar year not to exceed 15 months and failure to operate the valves periodically to determine that they open at the Con-ect set pressure; 49 C.F.R. § 192. 739( a) - (d}-- failing to test and inspect, once each calendar year not exceeding 15 months, the regulators that reduce transmission line pressure for the controller/instrument gas system service line and the private residence service line at the Hathaway Station. Respondent also failed to test and inspect the Unit 7 shutdown panel in the Baker compressor station during 2002; 49 C.F .R. § 192.605 (b}-- failing , to have adequate procedures: 1) to specify at what interval atmospheric corrosion monitoring mustocc urring, 2) to provide instructions for taking appropriate course of actions concerning changes in class locatio~ leakage history, corrosion, substantial changes in CP requirements, and other unusual operating and maintenance conditions, 3) to instruct the operator what to do if a segment ofpipeline is detennined to be in unsatisfactory condition but no immediate hazard exists, 4) to include remedial actions to be taken should a segment ofpipeline become unsafe, and 5) to direct personnel as to which records must be maintained and for what period of time those records shall be retained, as required by 49 C.F.R. § 192.613; 49 C.F.R. § 192.61S(a) - failing to have adequate procedures to provide for notification of appropriate fire, police, and other public officials of gas pipeline emergencies. Respondent's procedures also failed to include direction for coordinating both the planned and actual responses during an emergency with the above groups; 49 C.F.R. § 192.61 S(b) - failing to have adequate procedures to direct responsible persomtel to obtain emergency training and to identify the frequency in which emergency training will be given.#

520040007_Final Order_04062005.pdf, page 4, These findings of violation will be taken against RI ~spondent prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action ASSESSMENT OF PENAL TV - Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty to exceed $100,~ per violation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of violations. 49 V.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225 require that, in deternlining the amount of the civil penaJty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity oftbe violation, degree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to pay the penaJty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to Khieve compliance, the effect on Respondent's ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice ~eed 192.739. a total civil penaltyof $8,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R.. It 192.731 aDd The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $6,000 for Item 4, as Respondent failed to test and inspect various pressure relief valves at the Vida Station once each calendar year, not to exceed 15 months. Respondent also failed to opm'ate the valves periodically to detennine that the valves open at the co~t set pressure. Respondent did not contest the allegation. In its response, Respondent acknowledged that the pressure relief valves were not tested and inspected at the required interval due to oversight by Respondent's personnel Documentation is essential not only to show that the performance testing and inspection was conducted. but to show that the pressure relief valves are functioning properly. Without this history. an operator increases the risk ofharm to the public. The Vida Station is a remotely located facility. If this station were to go off line it could in~ downstream customers and create a public safety concern during the harsh winter months. The Respondent has not shown any circumstance that would have prev~ted or justified its failure to test and inspect various pressure relief valves once each calendar year not to exceed 15 months. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assessed Respondent a civil penalty of $6.000. The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $2,000 for Item Sb, as Respondent failed to test and inspect. once each calendar year not exceeding 15 months. the regulators that reduce transmission line pressure for the controUer/instnlment gas system service line and the private residence service line at the Hathaway Station. Respondent also failed to test and ~ the Unit 7 shutdown panel in the Baker compressor station during 2002. Respondent did not contest the allegation. In fact. Respondent acknowledged that the inspection and testing of the Unit #7 shutdown panel was not conducted at the required interval. Documentation is essential not only to show that the perfonnance testing and inspection was conducted. but to show that the Unit #7 shutdown panel is functioning properly. Without this history. an operator increases the risk ofbann to its personnel and the public.#

520040007_Final Order_04062005.pdf, page 54 If the service line were to receive high preuure gas. a release could result in death or injury. The Respondent bII not shown my MUmItaDCe that would have prevented or justified it! failure to test aM iI~ It the required interval. Accordingly t having reviewed the r=xd and coosidcral ~ IaeSSment criteria, I ~~1 RespoIKiait a civil penalty of ~(XX). Pl)mellt of the civil ptmIty must be made within 20 days of service. Pa)malt may be m.Ic by sending a ceI1ified cb~k or money order (containing the CPF Number for this cue) payable to "U.S. Deplrtmmt ofTransportation" to the F ederaJ Aviation Administration, Mike Momoney Aeronautical Cmter, FinlDcial aperabODI Division (AMZ-120), P.O. Box 25082, OklaOOma City, OK 73125. F edcraI regullti ODS (49 C.F.R. § 89.21 (b X 3 » aJm pami t this paymad to be made by wire traDSfa'. through the F edera1 Reserve Communicati~ System (F edwire). to the KCount of the u. S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire tranlfen should be directed to: Financial ~tiona DiviliOD (AMZ-120), Feda'a1 Aviation Administration. Mike M ~ Aaonautical Ceat«. P.O. Box 15082. ~ ~ City. OK 73 125; (40S) 954-8893. t-Ulure to pay b ~,UOO CIVIl peaaIty WID I81it m ~ of mterat at b Cm1aIt InnuaJ rate ID Failure to pay the $8,000 civil penalty win rCIU1t in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in - - - - -. --- - --- - ..- --- --- -- - . accordance with 31 V.S.C. § 3717,31 C.F .R. § 901.9 arxI49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursumt to those same authorities, a late penalty chlrge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is Dot made within 110 days of Ia"Vice. F\Dtbermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral oftbe m~~ to the Attorney GsIrnl for ippr+~.ate Kbon in a United States Dimict Court COMPLIANCE ORDER The Notice ~opc.ect a compJialx:e order with reIpect to ltaII8 violations 0(49 C.F.R. II 192.161(a), 192.463(1), IDd 192.739. 1. 2. IIxI Notice for Sa, in the UDder.9 U.S.C. § 60118(.), eKh IJerMlU who en~ in the transpor~~on of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility ia required to comply with the applicable safety standards establilbed under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 6O118{b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, RelpCMxIaIt is ordered to tIke the following actions to aI8IU'e compliance with the pipeline safety regu1ati~ ~Iicable to ita operations. ReIpoIKialt mUII- I. With regards to Itmlt of the Notice. provide adequate support to the meter sets- exposed piping at the Fairvicw city gate and the Richey aJKI Wolf Point 00rder stations. 2. Inspect aU other city gates and bcxder Itations to cnsure there is adequate support to all meter sets and exposed piping. Where IuppaIt deficiencies are found. provide adequate support. 3. Establish uxI implement a method of recording catlx)djc protection (CP) survey measurements that will indicate the criteria used to detennine ifmeuu rements are adequate. The record must have sufficient infonnation to determine if individual measuremalts taken meet required criteriL#

520040007_Final Order_04062005.pdf, page 65 4. Comp I de a CP Iurvey that indicates the criteria used. takes (IR voltage drops IImI- ) into KCOUD t and that So With regilds to Item S. of the Notice, inspect and test IboIe regulators at the Hathaway station that reduce line pressures for the instrument/control gas service line and the private residence service line. 6. Maintain documentation of the costs 88)cjated with completing each item in this compliance order and submit the total to the Director. OPS. W estern Regio~ within 60 days ofrccei pt of the Final Order. 1. Within 60 days of~eipt of tile Final Order, !lJbmit ck)Cwnentatioo IIxt evidence of the completion of all actiODl in this compliance order to the Director, OPS, Western Region, Pipeline aOO Hazank)us Materials Safety Adminiltration, 12300 West Dakota A Value, Suite 11O, Lakewood. Colorado 80228. The DiIKta', OPS, Westan RC8jon may IrInt an extension of time for comp~ terms ofthia order for good cauH. A request for an extension must be in writing. with any of the AMENDMF.NT OF PR~DURES The Notice alleged ~uaciea in ReIpoIldeDt'lOpcn bons,Mai ~ 8IMtEmer gel'M:iea Maual and proposed to require Irnendmcnt of Respondent'l procedura to comply with the requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605. RCIpoIxlmt did not contest the proposed Notice of Amendment. AccordjnaJy, I find that Rapolxlellts JXOCedma lie iu.lalu8e to aISIR safe operation of its pipeline system. Punuant to 49 V.S.C. § 601 08(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.237. ReIpOItdent is ordercd to make the following revisions to its procedures. Respondent must - t. Amend to ~fy at what intervalltlDospiaic corrosion monitoring pI'(M:edura must occur. 2. AmeDd procedures to include instnM:~ for taking 8j"jijrop-nate Ktions ~in8 changes in class locatio~ failures, leak. history, corrosion, substantial changes in CP requirements, and other unusual operating and maintenance conditions. 3. Amend procedures to iD8tluct pa'M)lDle) what to do if a segment of pipeline is determined to be in unsatilfKtory condition but no immediate hazard exiltl. 4. Arneod ploced~ to im to ilx:Judc remedial &1iona to be tam should . segmalt of pipeline become unsafe. s. Amelxl procedlu. to direct perWiDlel . to which records must be maintained and for what period of time thoee recordllba11 be retained.#

520040007_Final Order_04062005.pdf, page 76 6. Amend proceciula to adequately provide for ootificabon of ~~iate fire, p>lice, and other public officials of gal pipeline emerger1cies. Additionally. the procedures must include sufficient directions for coordinating both the planned and actual responses duriq 111 emergency widt fire, police, aIxt other public officials. 1. Amend proceciula to direct ~Dle penoonel to provide emaJencY training. Additionally. theproc edures must include the frequency in which emergency training win be given. .. Submit die amCIIdcd procedures to the Reaic-.l ~. within 30 days following receipt of this Order. Western Region, OPS The Regional Dira:tor may extend the paiod for complying with my of the required items if the ReapOlxleltt requests an extension and adequately justifies the reasons for the extension. Fail1R to cauply widt this AID5:iu:~ may rauIt in the ~~l1eiit of civil penalties of up to 5100.000 per violation per day, or in the referral of the cue for judicial enforcement. WARNING ITEMS The Notice did oot propose a civil ~ty or OOiTQ;~ve ICtioo for 1te8 3 in the Notice; thet~f«ti. these are considered warning items. Respondent is warned thIt ifit does not take apr,i~riate action to correct these items, enforcement action will be taken if a subsequent inspection reveals a violation. U1KIer49 C.F.R. § 190.21.5, ReIpOIxlent hM a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's r=eipt of this FinaJ Order and must contain a brief statement of the iuue(I). The filing of the petition automaticalJy stays the paymalt of any civil paJaltya sacacd. All other tams of the order, iIM; I ~I my required «n.aive action and amendmalt of procedma, IaDain in full effm unJeu the AISOciate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and coIxtiti~ ofthil Final Order are eff~tive on receipt. Fai~ to comply with this Final Orda' may result in the ~~ent SIOO,(XX) per violation per day, or in the referral of the ~ of civil penalties of up to for j1Xlicial enfuiCefi".eiit. .- m APR -6 Date Issued ~,,~#