# WYOMING PIPELINE COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 520176023
- **title:** WYOMING PIPELINE COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2017-08-15
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.420(b), 195.428(a), 195.583(a).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520176023.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520176023.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520176023
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520176023
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving WYOMING PIPELINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.420(b),  195.428(a),  195.583(a). The case was opened on 2017-08-15 and is reported as closed as of 2018-05-10. Proposed civil penalty: $81,800. Assessed civil penalty: $81,800. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

520176023_Final Order_05102018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520176023/520176023_Final%20Order_05102018.pdf

520176023_Final Order_05102018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520176023/520176023_Final%20Order_05102018_text.pdf

520176023_NOPV PCP_08152017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520176023/520176023_NOPV%20PCP_08152017.pdf

520176023_NOPV PCP_08152017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520176023/520176023_NOPV%20PCP_08152017_text.pdf

520176023_Operator Response to Notice_09142017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520176023/520176023_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_09142017.pdf

520176023_Final Order_05102018_text.pdf

May 10, 2018
Mr. William Pate
President and CEO
Par Pacific Holdings, Inc.
One Memorial Plaza
800 Gessner Road, Suite 875
Houston, TX 77024
Re: CPF No. 5-2017-6023
Dear Mr. Pate:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation and assesses a civil penalty of $81,800 against your subsidiary, Wyoming Pipeline
Company, LLC. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of the full penalty amount, by wire
transfer, dated October 31, 2017. This enforcement action is now closed. Service of the Final
Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing 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: Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Michael Farnsworth, Senior Vice President and Refinery Manager, Wyoming
Pipeline Company, LLC, 10 Stampede Street, Newcastle, WY 82701
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN 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 )
)
)
Wyoming Pipeline Company, LLC, )
a subsidiary of Wyoming Refining Company, )
Respondent. )
_________________________________________ )
) CPF No. 5-2017-6023
FINAL ORDER
From December 13-15, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Wyoming Pipeline
Company, LLC (WPC or Respondent), in Newcastle, Wyoming. Respondent operates
approximately 150 miles of 6-, 8-, and 10-inch, low-stress, crude oil pipelines in Niobrara and
Weston Counties, Wyoming. Approximately 148 miles are regulated rural pipelines, and
approximately 1.86 miles cross a small non-rural area within Newcastle, Wyoming. WPC
transports crude oil to Wyoming Refining Company’s refinery. WPC is a subsidiary of
Wyoming Refining Company.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated August 15, 2017, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil
Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that
WPC had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.420(b), 195.428(a), and 195.583(a) and proposed assessing
a civil penalty of $81,800 for the alleged violations.
WPC responded to the Notice by letter dated September 14, 2017 (Response). In its Response,
the company did not contest the allegations of violation but requested that the civil penalty be
reevaluated. Subsequently, on October 31, 2017, WPC paid the proposed administrative civil
penalty of $81,800 by wire transfer, as provided under 49 C.F.R § 190.227. In accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.208(a)(1), such payment authorizes the Associate Administrator to make
findings of violation and to issue this final order without further proceedings. Respondent did
not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
1 US SEC Form 10-K, Par Pacific Holdings, Inc., available at
http://www.edgarexplorer.com/EFX dll/EdgarPro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?SessionID=jajsqfEcPY-9E-
9&ID=11916133 (last accessed January 23, 2018). Note, Par Pacific Holdings is the parent of Hermes
Consolidated, LLC (d/b/a Wyoming Refining Company).



CPF 5-2017-6023
Page 2
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, WPC did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part
195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b), which states:
§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.
(a) …
(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at
least twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that
it is functioning properly.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) by failing to inspect each
mainline valve to determine that it was functioning properly, at intervals not exceeding 7½
months but at least twice each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that WPC had
seven mainline valves but it failed to conduct 14 inspections in 2013 (i.e., 7 x 2 = 14), eight
inspections in 2014, eight inspections in 2015, and one inspection in 2016.
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. § 195.420(b) by failing to inspect each
mainline valve to determine that it was functioning properly, at intervals not exceeding 7½
months but at least twice each calendar year.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:
§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator
shall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar
year, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at
intervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year,
inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure
regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it is
functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from
the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in
which it is used.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test
each overpressure safety device to determine that it was functioning properly, was in good
mechanical condition, and was adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of
operation for the service in which it was used, at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least
twice each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that WPC failed to have any records of
over-pressure protection inspections for the following 13 over-pressure safety devices in 2015:
 Mush Creek Station: One overpressure switch, one pressure sender, and three
pressure relief valves;
 Thunder Creek Station: One overpressure switch, one pressure sender, and two



CPF 5-2017-6023
Page 3
pressure relief valves;
 Butte Junction Station: One pressure sender and one pressure relief valve; and
 HA Creek Station: One overpressure switch and one pressure sender
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. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and
test 13 overpressure safety devices to determine that they were functioning properly, were in
good mechanical condition, and were adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of
operation for the service in which they were used, at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at
least twice each calendar year.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a), which states:
§ 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?
(a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed
to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:
If the pipeline is located: Then the frequency of inspection is:
Onshore ………………………….
Offshore ………………………….
At least once every 3 calendar years, but
with intervals not exceeding 39 months
At least once each calendar year, but
with intervals not exceeding
15 months
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a) by failing to inspect each
pipeline or portion of pipeline for evidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once every three
calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
WPC failed to inspect the following six pipeline facilities at least once between 2014 and 2016:
 Mush Creek to Buck Creek segment;
 Buck Creek to Lance Creek segment;
 Fiddler Creek facility;
 Mush Creek facility; and
 Mainline valves at Simmons Creek and Cheyenne River crossings.
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. § 195.583(a) by failing to inspect each
pipeline or portion of pipeline for evidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once every three
calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.



CPF 5-2017-6023
Page 4
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; and the good faith of Respondent
in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. 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 $81,800 for the violations cited above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $31,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.420(b), for failing to inspect each mainline valve from 2013 to 2016 to determine that it
was functioning properly at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar
year. In its Response, WPC did not contest the allegation of violation but requested that the
penalty be reviewed. Subsequently, on October 31, 2017, Respondent paid the proposed civil
penalty in full. Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.208(a)(1), such payment waives WPC’s opportunity to
contest the penalty amount. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the
assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $31,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.420(b).
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $26,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.248(a), for failing to inspect and test each overpressure safety device to determine that it
was functioning properly, was in good mechanical condition, and was adequate from the
standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it was used at intervals
not exceeding 15 months, but at least twice each calendar year. WPC neither contested the
allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in or elimination of the
proposed penalty. Respondent paid the penalty in full on October 31, 2017. Accordingly,
having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil
penalty of $26,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.248(a).
Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $24,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.583(a), for failing to inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline for evidence of
atmospheric corrosion at least once every three calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding
39 months. WPC neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument
justifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed penalty. Respondent paid the penalty in
full on October 31, 2017. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the
assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $24,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.583(a).
2 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum
Civil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).



CPF 5-2017-6023
Page 5
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
items cited above, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $81,800, which was paid in full by wire
transfer on October 31, 2017.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
May 10, 2018
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 13691