{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520075002","title":"BELLE FOURCHE PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2007-02-02","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.110(a), 195.402(a), 195.402(c)(12), 195.404(b)(2), 195.410(a)(1), 195.420(c), 195.440, 195.583(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520075002.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520075002.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520075002","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520075002","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BELLE FOURCHE PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.110(a),  195.402(a),  195.402(c)(12),  195.404(b)(2),  195.410(a)(1),  195.420(c),  195.440,  195.583(a). The case was opened on 2007-02-02 and is reported as closed as of 2009-09-15. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520075002_Decision on Petition_07142008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520075002/520075002_Decision%20on%20Petition_07142008.pdf\n\n520075002_decision on petition_07142008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520075002/520075002_decision%20on%20petition_07142008_text.pdf\n\n520075002_Final Order_04282008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520075002/520075002_Final%20Order_04282008.pdf\n\n520075002_final order_04282008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520075002/520075002_final%20order_04282008_text.pdf\n\n520075002_operator_response_10122007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520075002/520075002_operator_response_10122007.pdf\n\n520075002_petition for reconsideration_05222008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520075002/520075002_petition%20for%20reconsideration_05222008.pdf\n\n520075002_Request For Hearing_03082007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520075002/520075002_Request%20For%20Hearing_03082007.pdf\n\nBFPL 5-2007-5002 NOPV-PCO 2-2-07.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520075002/BFPL%205-2007-5002%20NOPV-PCO%202-2-07.pdf\n\nbfpl 5-2007-5002 nopv-pco 2-2-07_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520075002/bfpl%205-2007-5002%20nopv-pco%202-2-07_text.pdf\n\n520075002_decision on petition_07142008_text.pdf\n\n0 S Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1 200 New Jersey Ave 5 E\nWashington DC 20590\nJUL 1 4 2008\nVIA OVERNIGHT COURIER AND FACSIMILE TO: 303 866-02W\nMr. Hank True\nPresident\nBelle Fourche Pipeline Company\n455 N. Poplar St.\nCasper, WY 82601-1783\nRe: CPF No. 5-2007-5002\nDear Mr. True:\nEnclosed is the decision on the petition for reconsideration filed by Belle Fourche Pipeline\nCompany in the above-referenced case. For the reasons specified therein, the decision affirms\nthe Final Order and denies your request for a stay. However, the deadline for completion of the\nCompliance Order has been extended to 40 days from receipt of the decision.\nThis decision is the final administrative action in this proceeding. Your receipt of the document\nconstitutes service under 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Colin G. Harris, Esq.\nHolme Roberts k Owen LLP\n1801 13th St.\nSte 300\n,\nBoulder, CO 80302-5387\nFax: (303) 866-0200\n\n\n\nU. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATKRIAI S SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTONs D*C 20590\nIn the Matter of\nBelle Fonrche Pipeline Company,\nPetitioner.\nCPF No. 5-2007-5002\nDECISION ON RECONSIDERATION\nIn accordance with 49 U. S. C. $ 60118 and 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 213, the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration {PHMSA) issued a Final Order in this matter on April 28, 2008,\nfinding that Belle Fourche Pipeline Company (Belle Fourche or Petitioner) committed certain\nviolations of the agency's hazardous liquids pipeline safety regulations. Specifically, the Final\nOrder found that Belle Fourche had violated ) 195. 110(a), relating to a lack of proper supports\nfor external loads and vibration on its pipeline facilities (Item 1), and $ 195. 583, relating to a\nfailure to perform inspections for atmospheric corrosion (Item 8). In addition, it found that Belle\nFourche had committed 10 other probable violations and advised the company to correct them or\nface possible future enforcement action. Finally, the Final Order included a compliance order for\nItems 1 and 8 but did not seek any civil penalties.\nUnder $ 190. 215, a respondent may file a petition for reconsideration of a final order issued\npursuant to $ 190. 213, requesting that the Associate Administrator reconsider his decision.\nAlthough the Associate Administrator does not consider repetitious information, arguments or\npetitions, a respondent may request consideration of additional facts or arguments, provided that\nthe company submits the reason they were not presented prior to issuance of the final order.\n$ 190. 215. The purpose of this rule is to allow a respondent to present information or arguments\nthat were unavailable or unknown prior to issuance of the final order, as well as to allow the\nagency to correct any error in the final order, but not to provide the operator an appeal or de novo\nreview. Belle Fourche's Petition for Reconsideration in this case does not request consideration\nof additional facts but presents a mixture of legal issues, some of which are based upon alleged\nerrors in the Final Order. Petitioner's arguments are discussed in greater detail below.\nItem 1: The Final Order found that Petitioner violated 49 C. F. R, $ 195. 110{a) by failing to\nprovide for anticipated external loads, vibration, thermal expansion, and contraction in the design\nof certain facilities that had been constructed in 2000. Petitioner contends that PHMSA erred in\nstating in the Final Order that Belle Fourche did not \"contest\" this allegation. Belle Fourche also\ncontends that the agency failed to meet its burden of proving the allegation.\n\n\n\nAs for the first contention, it is true that Petitioner did not admit the allegations set forth in the\nNotice and, in fact, presented evidence that it had taken efforts to address the issue of temporary\nsupports by making certain repairs. The statement in the Final Order that Belle Fourche did not\n\"contest\" the allegation merely reflected the fact that the company had not presented any\nevidence disputing the basic factual allegation that, as of the date of the inspection, Belle\nFourche's facilities at the Sussex pump station and breakout tank still had temporary supports,\nwhich failed to meet the requirements of $ 195. 110(a).\nI have reconsidered the record and still can find no indication that Belle Fourche presented any\nevidence that would contradict the allegations in the Notice. In Belle Fourche's March 8, 2007\nResponse, the company simply stated, \"This matter has been addressed. \" Response at 3. In its\nOctober 11, 2007 Post-Hearing Submittal (Brief), Belle Fourche addressed Item 1 only by\nstating, \"OPS also alleged that Belle Fourche was using temporary blocks as supports at a\nstation. Asthetestimonydemonstrated„thismatterhasbeencorrected. \" Briefat14. Finally, in\nits Petition, Belle Fourche noted that it had submitted \"both direct testimony and an affidavit\nregarding this matter. Specifically, Belle Fourche's live witness. . . testified that the supports at\nthe Sussex station were repaired after OPS' inspection that identified the issue. \" Petition at $ 2.\nAll of these statements and evidence speak to the company's efforts to address the noncompliant\ncondition after PHMSA had already identified it. Regardless of whether or not Petitioner\n\"contested\" the allegation, Petitioner's only evidence consisted of statements concerning\nsubsequent actions to remedy the violation, which are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a\nviolation occurred in the first place.\nAs for the second contention that PHMSA did not meet its burden of proving this violation, I\nhave reconsidered the record and find that the agency has indeed met its burden of proving the\nallegations in Item 1. The evidence showed that during the agency's 2005 inspection, the\nPHMSA inspector observed that the company was still using temporary supports for pipeline\nfacilities that had been constructed in 2000. The inspector photographed the areas at issue and\nthose photos are in the record. Belle Fourche was using stacked wooden and concrete block\nsupports that were not securely fastened to the ground or other permanent feature. Excessive\nvibration could cause such temporary wooden and concrete blocks to topple.\nFor the reasons stated above, I find no reason to alter the finding in the Final Order that Belle\nFourche violated $ 195. 110(a). The finding of violation and terms of the compliance order\nassociated with the violation remain in effect, subject to the revised deadline set forth below.\nItem 8: The Final Order also found that Petitioner violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 583 by failing to\ninspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of\natmospheric corrosion, with particular attention given to pipe surfaces at pipe supports.\nPetitioner contends, first, that because the proposed compliance order in the Notice contained a\ntypographical error that referenced \"Item 9\" instead of \"Item 8, \" there was no valid compliance\nterm associated with Item 8 in the Final Order. Furthermore, Petitioner contends that PHMSA\nwould be required to amend the Notice in order to obtain such relief, but that to allow such an\namendment at this point would violate the company's due process rights and be arbitrary,\n\n\n\ncapricious, and contrary to law. Second, Belle Fourche contends that PHMSA is apparently\nwilling to accept only written \"documentation\" of Belle Fourche's actions regarding this Item\nand unwilling to consider direct testimony or other forms of relevant and reliable evidence.\nThese two issues warrant separate discussion.\nProcedura/ Issue. The Notice contained eight probable violations (Items 1 — 8). Each probable\nviolation included a \"[s]tatement of the. . . regulations. . . which the respondent is alleged to\nhave violated and a statement of the evidence upon which the allegations are based, \"\nas required\nby ) 190. 207. The probable violation identified as \"Item 8\" in the Notice alleged that Belle\nFourche violated $ 195. 583 by failing to inspect its pipeline for atmospheric corrosion. The\nproposed compliance order in the Notice specified that Belle Fourche would be required to\ninspect its pipeline for atmospheric corrosion to come into compliance.\nThe proposed compliance order, however, mistakenly referred to this alleged violation as \"Item\n9\" instead of \"Item 8. \" Notice at 6. This error was compounded elsewhere in the Notice when\nItem 8 was included in a list of warning items for which the agency \"decided not to conduct\nadditional enforcement. \" Notice at 4. There were several indications early in the proceeding\nthat this was a typographical error. First, the subject matter of the proposed compliance order\n(atmospheric corrosion inspections) was clearly associated with the allegation in Item 8 stating\nthat Belle Fourche had violated $ 195. 583 by failing to inspect its pipeline for atmospheric\ncorrosion. Second, there was no probable violation listed as \"Item 9\" in the Notice. Third, an\nearlier Notice of Probable Violation issued to Belle Fourche on February 21, 2006, had charged\nthe company with the same violation of $ 195. 583 and had proposed a compliance order (without\nan error); that Notice was withdrawn and reissued in the form of the present Notice. ' Finally, on\nApril 24, 2007, roughly four months prior to the hearing, PHMSA provided Belle Fourche with a\ncopy of the agency's Violation Report that indicated on pages 4 and 5 that PHMSA had proposed\na compliance order for the alleged violation of $ 195. 583.\nUpon receipt of the Notice, Belle Fourche apparently recognized the typographical error and\nacknowledged the proposed compliance terms in its Response, stating„\"There is no 'Item 9' to\nthe NPV. Accordingly, this purported remedial requirement is a nullity. On the other hand, to\nthe extent the order requires the requested relief, and assuming a violation existed. . . [the\ncorrective action is unnecessary or excessive], \" Response at 3. If there were still any confusion\nas to whether Item 8 was an allegation of violation with a proposed compliance order, PHMSA\nbrought up the issue at the hearing and explained that the alleged violation of $ 195. 583 was not\nmerely a warning but included the proposed corrective action mistakenly ascribed to \"Item 9\" in\nthe proposed compliance order. At that point, Belle Fourche was given an opportunity to\nrespond to the allegation, both at the hearing and through written materials submitted after the\nhearing.\nBelle Fourche took advantage of both opportunities. Discussion at the hearing and testimony by\nthe company's witnesses concerned Belle Fourche and the other co-respondents' compliance\nThe original notice of probable violation was withdrawn and reissued to Belle Fourche and two other companies\nin response to ob]ections by Belle Fourche that the proper entities had not been named Final Order at I\n\n\n\nwith $ 195. 583 without distinguishing between them. Petitioner's counsel also filed a joint\nPost-Hearing Submittal on behalf of Belle Fourche and the other respondents. Although he\nneglected to mention Belle Fourche by name in his discussion of $ 195. 583, the statements and\nevidence put forward in the Post-Hearing Submittal were found by PHMSA to be applicable in\nBelle Fourche's defense because they repeated the same discussion that took place at the hearing\nregarding all three companies' compliance with $ 195. 583 and because the allegations against all\nthree companies raised the same factual questions about whether or not the companies' single\nmanual of procedures was compliant and whether the companies' personnel actually performed\nthe required inspections.\nThe Final Order found that Belle Fourche had been provided actual notice of the proposed\ncompliance terms for Item 8 despite the typographical error in the Notice and had \"availed itself\nof the opportunity to contest the allegation\" by submitting evidence and statements to defend\nagainst the charge it violated $ 195. 583. Final Order at 3. The evidence and statements\nsubmitted by Belle Fourche were fully considered and duly reflected in the Final Order.\nPetitioner nevertheless argues that since the Notice contained a typographical error, the issue of\ncompliance with $ 195. 583 was not a subject of the proceeding. Petitioner fisher argues that the\nonly way such a defect can now be cured is for PHMSA to amend the Notice. Since PHMSA\nhas not amended the Notice, Petitioner argues that any decision on the issue at this point would\nviolate its right to due process. On the contrary, I am aware of no legal requirement that\nPHMSA must formally amend a Notice to correct a typographical error that has been pointed out\nby the agency in a timely manner and acknowledged by the respondent. PHMSA regulations\nstate, \"The Associate Administrator, OPS may amend a notice of probable violation at any time\nprior to issuance of a final order, \" but do not specify the circumstances under which amendment\nis required. $ 190. 207(c). Nor does the Administrative Procedure Act set forth any procedural\nrequirements that apply to this informal adjudication, because the Federal pipeline safety laws do\nnot require that this adjudication be \"on the record\" pursuant to 5 U. S. C. $ 554(a).\nBelle Fourche claims that the issuance of the Final Order without formal amendment would\nviolate due process but cites no authority to support its position. Federal courts have held the\ncontrary, stating that \"technical flaws in a notice can be cured if the actual conduct of the\nadministrative proceedings provides notice to the participants of that which is under\nconsideration. \" Nat'I Steel k Shi buildin Co. v. Office of Workers' Com . Pro rams, 616 F. 2d\n420, 421 (9th Cir. 1980), citing, among other cases, Golden Grain Macaroni Co. v. FTC, 472\nF. 2d 882 (9th Cir. 1972). In Golden Grain, the court held there was no due process violation\neven though the complaint did not explicitly allege a violation of the law the respondent was\nultimately found to have violated. An examination of the proceedings by the court showed \"that\nThe hearing concerned Belle Fourche and two separate cases against related compames. All three respondents\nwere charged with the same violation of ) 195. 583 because they shared both the same manual of written procedures,\nas well as certain employees whose actions served as the basis for the alleged violations A single hearing was held\nand the compames Jointly submitted a smgle Post-Hearing Submittal\nIn fact, Petitioner acknowledges in its Petition that the evidence presented at the hearing was put forward in Belle\nFourche*s defense, stating, \"In the consolidated hearing, Belle Fourche provided direct testimony . about\ncompliance with 49 C F R. $ 195. 583, based on . personal knowledge, and submitted [an] affidavit on the same\npoint \" Petition at $ 11.\n\n\n\nwhile there was some confusion as to the nature of the charge, all facts relevant to the alleged\nunlawful acts were fully litigated. \" Id. at 886. As stated by the court, \"[T]here is no due process\nviolation, if the party proceeded against understood the issue and was afforded full opportunity\nto justify its conduct. \" Id. at 885 (internal citations omitted).\nThe record in this case reflects that Belle Fourche received actual notice of the nature of the\nallegation in Item 8 and of the nature of the proposed compliance terms in the mislabeled \"Item\n9\" of the proposed compliance order. Petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend itself\nthroughout the proceeding and actually presented evidence on the facts relevant to the alleged\nviolation in Item 8. Therefore, I find there has been no violation of law or regulation arising out\nof the typographical error in the Notice.\nEvidentiary Issue. With respect to Item 8, Petitioner further disputes \"the apparent finding in the\nNPOV [sic] that the only relevant or reliable evidence to defend against liability is\n'documentation. '\" Petition at $ 11. Petitioner cites the Federal Rules of Evidence and PHMSA's\nprocedural regulations in support of its argument that evidence other than documentation must be\naccepted. Petitioner notes that it provided testimony at the hearing about compliance with\n$ 195. 583 and submitted an affidavit based on a witness's personal knowledge. Belle Fourche\nconcludes, \"To allow OPS to prevail because Respondent did not spoon-feed OPS some\nunarticulated form of 'documentation' that Respondent can only guess at would turn the burden\nof proof on its head. \" Petition at $ 11.\nContrary to Petitioner's assertion, PHMSA does not require operators to \"spoon-feed OPS some\nunarticulated form of documentation, \" but requires each operator to \"maintain a record of each\nanalysis, check, demonstration, examination, inspection„ investigation, review, survey, and test\"\nrequired by $ 195. 583 for a period of at least 5 years. $ 195. 589(c). Also contrary to Petitioner's\nsuggestion that PHMSA appears willing to consider only documentary evidence {or lack\nthereof), I have carefully reviewed and weighed all of the evidence submitted by Belle Fourche\nin accordance with the agency's regulations. PHMSA's regulation governing informal hearings\nprovides that a respondent \"may offer any facts, statements, explanations, documents, testimony\nor other items which are relevant to the issues under consideration. \"\n$ 190. 211(f). In addition,\npursuant to ) 190. 213 and prior to the issuance of a final order, I review all materials submitted\nby a respondent, including materials submitted by the respondent during and after a hearing.\nPetitioner's reliance on the Federal Rules of Evidence is misplaced because those rules govern\nproceedings in the courts of the United States and other judicial proceedings, not informal\nadjudications before this agency. In the present case, I have considered all of the evidence\npresented to the presiding official at the hearing and each written document, including affidavits,\nsubmitted by Belle Fourche throughout this proceeding. Upon reconsideration of all such\nevidence and legal arguments, I affirm that the evidence supports finding Petitioner violated )\n195. 583 by failing to perform inspections for atmospheric corrosion.\nThis evidence included various forms of evidence. During the PHMSA inspection, Belle Fourche\ncould not produce any record that it had performed atmospheric corrosion inspections. The\nPHMSA inspector documented a statement made by Petitioner's lead engineer to the inspector\nthat the company had no plans to perform inspections for atmospheric corrosion. Areas of\n\n\n\nPetitioner's pipeline facility were photographed showing atmospheric corrosion that appeared to\nhave been there for a significant length of time. At the hearing and in an affidavit, Petitioner's\nlead engineer acknowledged that \"specific external corrosion inspection procedures were not\nnecessarily written down, \" although the company's operations and maintenance (O&M) manual\nincluded a \"reference to external corrosion. \" Brief Ex. 6 at $ 28. The witness stated further that\n\"any significant external corrosion that was found [during routine O&M inspections] would have\nbeen addressed. \" Brief Ex. 6 at $ 28.\nThe fact that Petitioner has no record of inspecting for or discovering atmospheric corrosion on\nits pipeline facility is indicative of a failure to perform the required inspections, particularly in\nlight of this other evidence. Furthermore, I find unpersuasive the statements by Petitioner's lead\nengineer that the company's routine O&M inspections complied with $ 195. 583. Although he\nstated the company performed routine inspections, he never stated explicitly that the company\nalways inspected for atmospheric corrosion. Instead, he merely indicated that if the company\nfound any external corrosion during routine inspections, it would have been addressed. Brief Ex.\n6 at)28.\nThere is a marked difference between purposefully inspecting for atmospheric corrosion and\nmerely performing routine general inspection. In the latter, an operator may not find a condition\nthe operator is not specifically looking for. If an operator's procedures do not require checks for\natmospheric corrosion, employees may not necessarily look for and record such conditions. This\nappears to have been the situation in this case. Petitioner did not have any procedures for\nperforming atmospheric corrosion inspections and photographs of Petitioner's facility showed\nthat atmospheric corrosion had apparently been present but ignored for a significant period of\ntime in the course of Petitioner's routine inspections.\nHaving reconsidered all of the evidence concerning Belle Fourche's compliance with $ 195. 583,\nI find that PHMSA put forth sufficient evidence of noncompliance to meet its burden of proof\nand that the greater weight of evidence supports the finding that Belle Fourche violated the\nregulation as alleged. Accordingly, the finding of violation and terms of the compliance order\nremain in effect, subject to the revised deadline set forth below.\nRequest for Stay or for Extension of Time. Belle Fourche requested a stay of the terms of the\ncompliance order because \"Belle Fourche believes that this case presents unique circumstances,\ncreated by OPS, that have the potential to severely prejudice Belle Fourche. \" Petition at $ 12,\nPetitioner provides no rationale or evidence to support this assertion but claims that it would be\n\"manifestly unjust\" to compel compliance actions \"based on a claim that was never pled. \"\nPetition at $ 12. I find that Petitioner has failed to make an adequate showing as to why the\nterms of the Final Order should be stayed. Accordingly, I deny Petitioner's request for a stay.\nIn the alternative, Petitioner requested \"at least 120 days to investigate and address the issue of\ncompliance with 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 583, rather than the 60 days allowed in the Final Order. \"\nPetition at 5 13. As set forth in the Final Order, an extension of time to comply with any of the\nrequired corrective action items may be granted upon a written request timely submitted\ndemonstrating good cause for an extension. Again, Petitioner has not demonstrated any good\nreason why an extension should be granted. Belle Fourche has had more than two years and four\n\n\n\nmonths since the first Notice of Probable Violation was issued in February 2006 to \"investigate\nand address\" the compliance issues set forth in this matter and, more recently, over 10 months\nsince the hearing was held in August 2007. Nothing has prevented the company from\ninvestigating and addressing the issues during this time.\nNotwithstanding the lack of merit in Petitioner's request, I believe it would be fair and not\ninconsistent with pipeline safety to allow Petitioner a reasonable period of time to comply with\nthe terms of the Final Order, upon issuance of this decision. Therefore, I hereby modify the\nterms of the compliance order in order to allow Petitioner additional time to achieve compliance.\nThe applicable terms of the compliance order are amended to read as follows:\n4. Complete each of the above items and submit documentation of compliance\nwithin 40 days of receipt of the Decision on Reconsideration. . . .\nThis Decision on Reconsideration is the final administrative action in this proceeding.\nJeffrey . iese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nD teIs ed\n\n\n\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY\nADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL\n1200 NE% JERSEY AVE, SE %ASHINGTON, DC 20590\nROOM E26-122\nFax: (202} 366-7041\nFAX COVER SHKKT\nFAX NUMBER TRANSMITTED TO: ~@. II'6 6 . ~~\n. . : +. M+9\nOf: @'&~ ~~@\nFro\nClient/Matter: @ ~ P\nG' ~+ ~g\nDOCUMENTS NUMBER OF PAGES*\n(Includin Cover Sheet\nCOMMENTS:\n* NOT COUNTING COVER SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PI. EASE TELEPHONE US\nIMMEDIATELY AT (202} 366-4400\n\n\n\nDate/Time\nLocalID 1\nLocalID 2\n07-14-2008 202 366 7041\n02 36 49 p m\nTransmission Report\nTransmit Header Text\nLocal Name 1\nLocal Name 2\nThis document: Confirmed\n{reduced sample and details below)\nDocument size: 8. 5 \"x11\"\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY\nADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL\n1200 NE% JERSEY AVE, SE %ASHINGTON, DC 20590\nROOM E26-122\nFax. (202) 366-TQal\nFAX COVER SHEET\n„+. P~+9t e~\nC)ICIII/Matter @» ~P~ P\n/6F AFEBFt\nDOCLIM8NTS\n~J\n~ NUMBER OF PAGES', l\nQ NMFRC ' BRFN2\nCCIMMPJFFf 8\nB FIOT COUNTIFIG COVER SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAOBS, PLBASB TB BPHONIB US\nIBFIMBDIATELT AT(202) 366~\nTotal Pages Scanned . 9\nNo Job Remote Station\n001 885 303-866-0200\nAbbreviations\nHS. Host send\nHR Host receive\nWS, Waiting send\nTotal Pages Confirmed 9\nStart Time\n02, 33 29 p. m 07-14-2008 00. 02, 45 Duration Pages\n9/9\nLine Mode Job Type\n1 EC HS\nResults\nCP28800\nPL Polled local\nPR Polled remote\nMS, Mailbox save\nMP, Mailbox pnnt\nCP Completed\nFA Fail\nTU Terminated by user\nTS Terminated by system 63 Group 3\nRP Report EC Error Correct\n\nbfpl 5-2007-5002 nopv-pco 2-2-07_text.pdf\n\nU, S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration\n12300 W Dakota Ave, Suite 110\nLakewood, CO 80228\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\nFebruary 2, 2007\nSENT TO COMPLIANCE REGISTRY\nHardcopy Electrontcall\n0 of Coptes~l Date '7\nMr. Hank True\nPresident\nBelle Fourche Pipeline Company\n895 W. River Cross Road\nCasper, WY 82602\nCPF No. 5-2007-5002\nDear Mr. True:\nBetween June 6-10, 2005, July 18-21, 2005, and August 15-18, 2005, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of\n49 United States Code inspected your of Belle Fourche Pipeline Company's (BFPL) Belle\nFourche pipeline systems in Montana and Wyoming. This inspection included a review of\nsupporting Operation and Maintenance (O&M) records for all systems in Casper and New\nCastle, Wyoming and Baker, Montana.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and\nthe probable violations are:\nl. $195. 110. External loads\n(a) Anticipated external loads (e. g. ), earthquakes, vibration, thermal expansion, and\ncontraction must be provided for in designing a pipeline system. In providing for\nexpansion and flexibility, $419 of ASMElANSI 831. 4 must be followed.\n\n\n\nThe Sussex pump station and breakout tank was constructed in 2000 and still has temporary\nwooden and concrete blocks used as supports under the pig trap and receiver as well as\nsupports for the tank booster pump piping.\n2. $195. 402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a\nmanual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance\nactivities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall be\nreviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year,\nand appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective.\nThis manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline commence, and\nappropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and maintenance\nactivities are conducted.\na. During the interim time period when BFPL was developing a combined manual of\noperation and maintenance procedures for BFPL and the Bridger Pipeline Company, BFPL\nwas using their old manual for day to day operations and maintenance procedures. The\nBFPL manual that was used during the interim period exceeded the required review period\nbetween January 23, 2004 when the BFPL manual was last reviewed and July 2005 when\nthe new combined manual was adopted, a period of 17. 3 months.\nb. BFPL procedures require periodic review of work done by the operator to determine the\nadequacy of procedures used in normal operations and maintenance. BPL has not\ncompleted any of these reviews.\nc. BPL procedures require periodic review of work done by the operator to determine the\nadequacy of procedures used in controlling abnormal operations. BPL has not completed\nany of these reviews.\n3. $195. 402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of\nthis section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during\nmaintenance and normal operations:\n(12) Establishing and maintaining liaison with fire, police, and other appropriate\npublic officials to learn the responsibility and resources of each government\norganization that may respond to a hazardous liquid or pipeline emergency and\nacquaint the officials with the operator's ability in responding to a hazardous liquid\nor carbon dioxide pipeline emergency and means of communication.\nBFPL liaison activity efforts do not insure that local responders, including those at remote\nlocations, understand how to respond to a pipeline emergency for the Belle Fourche pipeline\nsystem.\n\n\n\n$195. 403 Emergency Response Training.\n(b) At the intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year,\neach operator shall:\n(1) Review with personnel their performance in meeting the objectives of the\nemergency response training program set forth in paragraph (a) of this section; and\n(c) Each operator shall require and verify that its supervisors maintain a thorough\nknowledge of that portion of the emergency response procedures established under\n195. 402 for which they are responsible to ensure compliance.\na. BFPL does not review with personnel, once each calendar year not to exceed 15 months,\ntheir performance in meeting the objectives of the emergency response training program.\nb. BFPL does not verify that their supervisors have adequate knowledge of emergency\nresponse procedures.\n4. $195. 404 Maps and Records.\n(b) Each operator shall maintain for at least 3 years daily operating records that\nindicate-\n(2) Any emergency or abnormal operation to which the procedures under $195. 402\napply.\nThere is no documentation of abnormal operations and actions taken in response to those\nabnormal operations for the Belle Fourche pipeline system.\n5. $195. 410 Line markers.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall place and\nmaintain line markers over each buried pipeline in accordance with the following:\n(1) Markers must be located at each public road crossing, at each railroad crossing,\nand in sufficient number along the remainder of each buried line so that its location is\naccurately known.\nDuring this inspection several markers were down along the Belle Fourche system's\nBicentennial line,\n6. $195. 420 Valve maintenance.\n(c) Each operator shall provide protection for each valve from unauthorized\noperation and from vandalism.\nNeither the vault nor the block valve on Belle Fourche system's Bicentennial line west of\nWibaux, Montana was locked to prevent unauthorized operation.\n7. $195. 440 Public awareness\nEach operator shall establish a continuing educational program to enable the public,\nappropriate government organizations and persons engaged in excavation-related\nactivities to recognize a hazardous liquid or a carbon dioxide pipeline emergency and\n\n\n\nto report it to the operator or the fire, police, or other appropriate public officials.\nThe program must be conducted in English and in other languages commonly\nunderstood by a significant number and concentration of non-English speaking\npopulation in the operator's operating areas.\nBFPL Public Awareness Program does not provide adequate pipeline information to the\ngeneral public.\n8. $195. 583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?\n(a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the\natmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:\nIf the pipeline is located: Then the frequency of inspection is:\nOnshore At least once every 3 calendar\nyears, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months\nOffshore At least once each calendar year,\nbut with intervals not exceeding 15 months\n(b) During inspections you must give particular attention to pipe at soil-to-air\ninterfaces, under thermal insulation, under disbonded coatings, at pipe supports, in\nsplash zones, at deck penetrations, and in spans over water.\n(c) If you find atmospheric corrosion during an inspection, you must provide\nprotection against the corrosion as required by Sec. 195. 581.\nBFPL has not completed or documented any of their atmospheric corrosion inspections. BFPL\nhas no plan for examining those pipe surfaces that are in contact with concrete saddles.\nPro osed Com liance Order\nPursuant to 49 United States Code $ 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to BFPL. Please refer to the Proposed\nCompliance Order that is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.\nWarnin Items\nWith respect to items 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 4a, 4b, 5, 6, 7, and 8 we have reviewed the circumstances\nand supporting documents involved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional\nenforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly\ncorrect these items. Be advised that failure to do so may result in BFPL being subject to\nadditional enforcement action.\n\n\n\nRes onse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline\nOperators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response\noptions. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a\nwaiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate\nAdministrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice\nto you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2007-5002 and for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nC ' oia\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\ncc; PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 (G. Davis 114331, 114330, 114253)\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code $ 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to BFPL a Compliance Order incorporating the\nfollowing remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of BFPL with the pipeline safety\nregulations:\n1. With respect to Item 1 of the Notice, BFPL must:\nRemove and replace all existing temporary supports on above ground pipeline\nappurtenances at the Sussex pump station and replace with adequate permanent\nsupports.\nProvide PHMSA documentation showing the replacement of all temporary supports\nat the Sussex pump station.\n2. With respect to Item 9 of the Notice BFPL must:\nComplete an atmospheric corrosion inspection of all exposed piping on the Poplar,\nButte, and Belle Fourche pipelines. These inspections shall include but not be\nlimited to the soil to air interfaces and under pipe supports.\nDocument all of the above inspections.\nProvide protection for all areas of corrosion found during the above inspections.\n3. Within 60 days of issuance of the Final Order, Belle Fourche Pipeline Company\nmust complete the above items, and submit the required documentation and\nprocedures to the Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, Pipelines\nand Hazardous Materials Administration, Lakewood, Colorado 80228.\n4. BFPL must maintain documentation of the costs associated with fulfilling this\ncompliance order and submit the total to the Director, Western Region, Office of\nPipeline Safety.\n5. BFPL shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated\nwith fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to, Director, Western\nRegion, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Costs shall be\nreported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of\nplans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n\n520075002_final order_04282008_text.pdf\n\nO\nU S Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nAPRONS 2II 1200 flew Jersey Aye S E\nWashington DC 20000\nVIA CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\nMr, Hank True\nPresident\nBelle Fourche Pipeline Company\n455 N. Poplar St.\nCasper, WY 82601-1783\nRe: CPF No. 5-2007-5002\nDear Mr. True:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation\nand specifies actions to be taken to comply with the pipeline safety regulations, When the terms\nof the compliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director, Western Region,\nthis enforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of this Final Order constitutes service under\n49 C. F. R. $ 190 5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Colin G. Harris, Esq.\nHolme Roberts 4 Owen LLP\n1801 13th St.\nSte 300\n,\nBoulder, CO 80302-5387\n\n\n\nU. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\nBelle Fourche Pipeline Company,\nRespondent.\nCPF No. 5-2007-5002\nFINAL ORDER\nOn June 6-10, July 18-21, and August 15-18, 2005, pursuant to 49 U, S. C. $ 60117, a\nrepresentative of the Pipelme and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's Office of\nPipeline Safety (OPS) conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Belle Fourche Pipeline\nCompany's (Belle Fourche or Respondent) pipeline facilities and records in Montana and\nWyoming. Respondent's pipeline system transports crude oil and refined petroleum products in\nNorth Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western\nRegion, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated Februar","truncated":true,"body_characters":54731}