{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520065031","title":"ROCKY MOUNTAIN PIPELINE SYSTEM, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2006-07-14","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.404(b)(2), 195.436, 195.573(e).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520065031.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520065031.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520065031","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520065031","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ROCKY MOUNTAIN PIPELINE SYSTEM, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.404(b)(2),  195.436,  195.573(e). The case was opened on 2006-07-14 and is reported as closed as of 2009-06-18. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520065031_Final Order_06182009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520065031/520065031_Final%20Order_06182009.pdf\n\n520065031_Final Order_06182009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520065031/520065031_Final%20Order_06182009_text.pdf\n\n520065031_Final Order_06182009_text.pdf\n\nJUN 18 2009\nMr. Troy E. Valenzuela\nVice President, Environmental Health and Safety\nRocky Mountain Pipeline System, LLC\n1575 Highway 150 South, Suite E\nEvanston, WY 82930\nRe: CPF No. 5-2006-5031\nDear Mr. Valenzuela:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and finds that Rocky Mountain Pipeline System, LLC, has completed the actions\nspecified in the Notice required to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. This case is\nnow closed. Your receipt of this Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA\nMr. Michael L. Jones\nLaw Department\nPlains Marketing, L.P.\n333 Clay Street, Suite 1600\nHouston, TX 77002\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0046 9679]\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 )\nRocky Mountain Pipeline System, LLC, ) CPF No. 5-2006-5031\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n___________________________________ )\nFINAL ORDER\nOn May 15–17, 2006, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Rocky Mountain Pipeline System LLC’s\n(Rocky Mountain Pipeline’s or Respondent’s) Thermopolis District pipelines in Montana and\nWyoming. The Thermopolis District has 232 miles of DOT-regulated hazardous liquid\npipelines. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued\nto Rocky Mountain Pipeline, by letter dated July 14, 2006, a Notice of Probable Violation\nand Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that Rocky Mountain Pipeline had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.436\nand 195.573 and proposed ordering Rocky Mountain Pipeline to take certain measures to\ncorrect the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed finding that Respondent had\ncommitted a probable violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(b)(2) and warned Respondent to take\nappropriate corrective action or be subject to future enforcement action.\nRocky Mountain Pipeline responded to the Notice by letters dated August 14, 2006, and July\n3, 2007, and also on numerous occasions via electronic-mail (Responses). Respondent\ninitially contested two of the items in the Notice and provided explanations and information\nconcerning the corrective actions it was taking and planned to take in the future. The\nResponse also initially requested a hearing but Respondent withdrew that request for a\nhearing in an e-mail dated June 6, 2007.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Rocky Mountain Pipeline contested the allegation in the Notice that it\nviolated 49 C.F.R. Part 195 as follows:\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.436, which states:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 195.436 Security of facilities.\nEach operator shall provide protection for each pumping station and\nbreakout tank area and other exposed facility (such as scraper traps) from\nvandalism and unauthorized entry.\nItem 2 in the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to provide protection from vandalism\nand unauthorized entry at several pumping stations and breakout tank areas. Specifically,\nit alleged that on the dates of inspection, Respondent did not have adequate security\nfencing or other security measures in place at its Elk Basin, Kirby, and Lost Cabin\npumping stations and breakout tanks. The Elk Basin and Kirby pump stations and\nbreakout tanks were enclosed by barbed-wire fencing. The Lost Cabin breakout tanks\nwere also enclosed by barbed-wire fencing. A publicly available interpretation letter\nexplains that PHMSA may not consider barbed-wire fencing adequate protection to deter\nadequate to deter livestock or other animals from entering an exposed facility, it is not an\nvandalism or entry by unauthorized persons.1 While barbed-wire fencing may be\nadequate barrier to prevent unauthorized persons from entering. Further, not all valves at\nthe stations listed in the notice were adequately secured to prevent vandalism.\nIn its initial Response, Respondent acknowledged that the Elk Basin and Kirby pumping\nstations and breakout tanks and the Lost Cabin breakout tanks were enclosed only by\nfour-strand barbed-wire fencing with padlocked gates. Respondent explained that all of\nthe stations listed were located in remote areas. Respondent also pointed out that all of\nthe stations listed in the Notice are electronically monitored 24-hours per day at a control\ncenter in Long Beach, California and receive regular visits from Respondent’s personnel.\nRespondent’s initial argument that barbed-wire fencing constituted security fencing\nsufficient to protect against unauthorized entry was not persuasive.\nelectronic monitoring systems referred to in the Response do not provide protection from\nunauthorized entry. In its supplemental response of July 3, 2007, and in an email dated\nNovember 7, 2007, respectively, Respondent provided additional information\ndemonstrating that it had installed security fencing at all locations that previously had\nonly wire fencing and also that all valves had been chained and padlocked at each station\ncited in the Notice.\n2 Further, the\nAfter considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.436\nby not having adequate protection in place to safeguard the pumping stations and\nbreakout tanks named in the Notice from vandalism or unauthorized entry.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent\nenforcement action taken against Respondent.\n1 See, PHMSA Interpretation Letter PI-80-012 (August 13, 1980), available at\nhttp://phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/interps.\n2 Id.\n\n\n\n3\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e), which\nstates:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion.\n(a) . . .\n(e) Corrective action. You must correct any identified deficiency\nin corrosion control as required by § 195.401(b). However, if the\ndeficiency involves a pipeline in an integrity management program under\n§ 195.452, you must correct the deficiency as required by § 195.452(h).\nItem 3 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.573(e) by not taking\nappropriate actions to correct identified deficiencies in corrosion control as required.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged Rocky Mountain Pipeline failed to take corrective actions\nto resolve cathodic protection (CP) deficiencies reflected in their monitoring records for\nboth the Beartooth and Big Horn Pipelines in the years 2003 to 2005. In 2003, Beartooth\nPipeline CP monitoring records showed four test stations had “instant off” levels of less\nthan -850mV. Also, in 2003 there were approximately 25 test stations on the Big Horn\nPipeline that had “instant off” levels of less negative than -850mV. CP test records from\n2004 and 2005 indicate the “on” levels at these test stations on the Big Horn pipeline\nwere less negative than in 2003. Additionally, Big Horn Pipeline records showed “on”\nreadings at three locations which were more negative than the “instant off” readings,\nwhich indicated possible interference problems with the pipeline. At the time of\ninspection, Respondent had not taken corrective actions as required by 49 C.F.R.\n§195.573(e) to correct these identified deficiencies in corrosion control.\nRespondent did not contest the allegation of violation. Accordingly, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. §195.573(e) by failing to take corrective actions to\nremedy identified deficiencies in corrosion control.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent\nenforcement action taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Items 2 and 3 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. § 195.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or\nwho owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under chapter 601. The Director has indicated that Respondent has\nsatisfactorily completed the following actions specified in the Proposed Compliance\nOrder:\n1. 49 C.F.R. § 195.436 -- With regard to the violation as described in Item 2 of\nthe Notice, on July 3, 2007, Respondent stated it had chained and padlocked\n\n\n\n4\nvalves at each station cited in the Notice. Further, on November 7, 2007,\nRespondent electronically mailed photographs of all locations cited in the\nNotice showing that security fencing had been installed.\n2. 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e) -- With regard to the violation as described in Item 3\nof the Notice, Respondent has provided information and records showing that\nit has taken corrective actions to address the deficiencies identified in that\nItem, and that CP levels at all stations on the Big Horn and Beartooth\nPipelines are at or above monitoring criteria levels. Additionally, Respondent\nhas provided information that it has taken actions to correct the pipeline\ninterference problems referenced in the Notice.\nAccordingly, since compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations, the\ncompliance terms are not included in this Order.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 1 the Notice alleged probable violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.404(b)(2), but did not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for this item.\nTherefore, this is considered to be a warning item. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.404(b)(2) -- Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain\ndaily operating records that indicate emergency or abnormal pipeline\noperations to which the procedures under 49 C.F.R. § 195.402 apply.\nRespondent presented information in its Response clarifying which records it keeps and\ndescribing the manner in which those records are maintained. Having considered such\ninformation, I find, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, that a probable violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 195.404(b)(2) has occurred and Respondent is hereby advised to correct such\ncondition. If OPS finds a violation for this item in a subsequent inspection, Respondent\nmay be subject to future enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be effective upon receipt.\n_____________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":11277}