{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520186015","title":"IDAHO PIPELINE CORP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2018-07-19","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 194.107(c)(1)(ix), 194.107(c)(1)(viii), 194.7(b), 195.402(c)(3), 195.404(a)(3), 195.440(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520186015.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520186015.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520186015","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520186015","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving IDAHO PIPELINE CORP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 194.107(c)(1)(ix),  194.107(c)(1)(viii),  194.7(b),  195.402(c)(3),  195.404(a)(3),  195.440(a). The case was opened on 2018-07-19 and is reported as closed as of 2025-06-30. Proposed civil penalty: $49,000. Assessed civil penalty: $49,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520186015_Closure Letter_06302025_(17-155733S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186015/520186015_Closure%20Letter_06302025_(17-155733S).pdf\n\n520186015_Closure Letter_06302025_(17-155733S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186015/520186015_Closure%20Letter_06302025_(17-155733S)_text.pdf\n\n520186015_Complaint United States versus Idaho Pipeline_05292024_(17-1557335).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186015/520186015_Complaint%20United%20States%20versus%20Idaho%20Pipeline_05292024_(17-1557335).pdf\n\n520186015_Final Order_08092019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186015/520186015_Final%20Order_08092019.pdf\n\n520186015_Final Order_08092019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186015/520186015_Final%20Order_08092019_text.pdf\n\n520186015_Motion for Default Judgement_01082025_(17-155733S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186015/520186015_Motion%20for%20Default%20Judgement_01082025_(17-155733S).pdf\n\n520186015_NOPV PCP PCO_07192018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186015/520186015_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_07192018.pdf\n\n520186015_NOPV PCP PCO_07192018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186015/520186015_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_07192018_text.pdf\n\n520186015_Operator Response to Notice_08172018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186015/520186015_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_08172018.pdf\n\n520186015_Final Order_08092019_text.pdf\n\nAugust 9, 2019\nMr. Robert Rose\nPresident\nIdaho Pipeline Corporation\nP.O. Box 15653\nBoise, Idaho 83715\nRe: CPF No. 5-2018-6015\nDear Mr. Rose:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $49,000, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Idaho\nPipeline Corporation to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms\nare set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the\ncompliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement\naction will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of\nmailing, as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Office, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\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 )\nIdaho Pipeline Corporation, ) CPF No. 5-2018-6015\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nDuring September 5 through 8, 2017, and September 18 through 21, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of\nthe facilities and records of Idaho Pipeline Corporation’s Boise Aviation Fuel Pipeline (IDPC or\nRespondent) in Boise, Idaho.1 The IDPC’s Boise Aviation Fuel Pipeline (BAFP) is an 8- and 4-\ninch pipeline system totaling 2.69 miles.2 The BAFP was built in 1987 and was designed to\nreceive, store, and transfer jet fuel to the Idaho Air National Guard.3\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated July 19, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that IDPC had committed two violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 194 and three\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $49,000 for one of the\nalleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to\ncorrect the alleged violations.\nIDPC responded to the Notice by letter dated August 17, 2018 (Response). The company\ncontested one allegation, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested\nthat the proposed civil penalty be eliminated or reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing\nand therefore has waived its right to one.\n1 Idaho Pipeline Corporation is a sister company of several other pipeline companies owned or controlled by Mr.\nRobert L. Rose. E.g., In the Matter of St. Louise Pipeline Operating, LLC, CPF 3-2017-5006, 2018 WL 3703699, at\n4 (May 1, 2018); In the Matter of Tampa Bay Pipeline Company CPF 2-2013-6009, 2014 WL 6877083, at 5\n(September 29, 2014); In the Matter of the Pipelines of Puerto Rico, Inc., CPF 2-2012-6020, at Footnotes 1 and 2,\n(February 28, 2013). PHMSA final orders are accessible on the agency's website, available at http://\nprimis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/Actions.\n2 PHMSA Violation Report, on file with PHMSA.\n3 Id., at Exhibit A, page 72 of 91.\n\n\n\nCPF 5-2018-6015\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Parts 194 and 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 194.7(b), which states:\n§ 194.7 Operating restrictions and interim operating authorization.\n(a) ….\n(b) An operator must operate its onshore pipeline facilities in\naccordance with the applicable response plan.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 194.7(b) by failing to follow the\nNational Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) guidelines as required by its own\noil spill response plan. Specifically, the Notice alleged that IDPC failed to satisfy the general\nresponse plan requirement of inclusion of a drill program that followed PREP guidelines. The\nNotice alleged, for example, that IDPC failed to perform an Incident Management Team exercise\nand also failed to perform an Equipment Deployment drill under sections 5.2 and 5.3 of PREP,\nrespectively, within the required triennial cycle.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 194.7(b) by failing to follow the\nPREP guidelines as required by its oil spill response plan.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 194.107(c)(1)(viii), which\nstates:\n§ 194.107 General response plan requirements.\n(a) ….\n(c) Each response plan must include:\n(1) A core plan consisting of-\n(i) ….\n(viii) Equipment testing…\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 194.107(c)(1)(viii) by failing to test its\nemergency response equipment. Specifically, the Notice alleged that IDPC had response\nequipment at its terminal but was unable to provide any documentation demonstrating that it had\nperformed testing on this emergency response equipment.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 194.107(c)(1)(viii) by failing to test\nits emergency response equipment.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3), which states:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) ….\n\n\n\nCPF 5-2018-6015\nPage 3\n(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to\nprovide safety during maintenance and normal operations:\n(1) ….\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in\naccordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of\nthis part.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3) by failing to prepare and\nfollow a written procedure for operating, maintaining and repairing the pipeline in accordance\nwith Part 195 Subpart F-Operation and Maintenance (O&M). Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat IDPC’s O&M manual failed to have a written procedure for establishing the maximum\noperating pressure (MOP) for its 8- and 4-inch pipelines in accordance with § 195.406.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3) by failing to have and\nfollow a written procedure for establishing the MOP for its 8- and 4-inch pipelines in accordance\nwith § 195.406.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(3), which states:\n§ 195.404 Maps and records.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its pipeline\nsystems that include at least the following information:\n(1) ….\n(3) The maximum operating pressure of each pipeline.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(3) by failing to maintain\ncurrent records of its pipeline system that include the MOP. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nIDPC could not produce any records or calculations that were used to establish the MOP of its 8-\nand 4-inch pipelines.\nIn its Response, IDPC argued that on November 11, 2009, its contractor performed an eight-hour\npressure test on both the 8- and 4-inch pipelines and established an MOP of 292 psig in\naccordance with § 195.304. At that time, IDPC stated that it opted to establish an MOP of 275\npsig. IDPC stated further that its contractor performed another pressure test of its 8- and 4-inch\npipelines on April 30, 2014, which established an MOP of 289 psig. IDPC argued that instead of\nadopting the higher MOP of 289 psig in 2014, it chose to retain the established MOP of 275 psig.\nIDPC also argued that all of the test records were available at the time of the inspection.\nSection 195.404(a)(3) requires each operator to maintain records of its pipeline system that\ninclude the MOP of each pipeline. The MOP of each pipeline, pursuant to § 195.406, may not\nexceed any of the following pressures: (1) internal design pressure of the pipe; (2) design\npressure of any component of the pipeline; and (3) eighty percent of the test pressure, among\nother specifications.\nWhile IDPC contends that its eight-hour pressure tests in 2009 and 2014, and the pressure test\n\n\n\nCPF 5-2018-6015\nPage 4\nrecords, constitute records sufficient to demonstrate the MOP in accordance with\n§ 195.404(a)(3), pressure test records are only a portion of the records Respondent is required to\nmaintain to establish the MOP. Respondent failed to provide other records or calculations\nnecessary to establish or substantiate the MOP of its 8- and 4-inch pipelines. For example,\nRespondent did not provide records regarding the design pressure of the pipe or any components\nof the pipeline. Records that are needed to determine or substantiate the MOP may include, but\nare not limited to, pipe manufacturer specification records, pipe mill records, pipe yield strength,\nseam type, wall thickness, and pipe diameter thickness.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. § 195.404(a)(3) by failing to maintain current records of its pipeline system, particularly,\nrecords or calculations that validate the MOP of its 8- and 4-inch pipelines.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a), which states:\n§ 195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written\ncontinuing public education program that follows the guidance provided in\nthe American Petroleum Institute’s (API) Recommended Practice (RP)\n1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a) by failing to develop and\nimplement a written continuing public education program that follows the guidance provided in\nAPI RP 1162. Specifically, the Notice alleged that IDPC had established a continuing public\nawareness program but had failed to follow several sections of API RP 1162.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a) by failing to properly\ndevelop and implement a written continuing public education program that follows the guidance\nprovided in API RP 1162.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.4 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\n4 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223; Revisions to Civil Penalty Amounts,\n83 Fed. Reg. 60732, 60744 (Nov. 27, 2018).\n\n\n\nCPF 5-2018-6015\nPage 5\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil\npenalty of $49,000 for one of the violations cited above.\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $49,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.404(a)(3), for failing to maintain current records of its pipeline system, specifically records\nor calculations that validate the MOP of its 8- and 4-inch pipelines. In its Response, IDPC\ncontested the violation but argued, in the alternative, that the proposed penalty should be reduced\ndue to financial hardship. According to the company, its supplier terminated its Connection and\nOperations agreement with IDPC, resulting in the loss of its resupply capability and any\nassociated revenues since May 13, 2017.5 IDPC provided no records to support its assertion, but\nasked to “reserve the right to provide further information if needed.”\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I\nmust consider any effect that the penalty may have on Respondent’s ability to continue doing\nbusiness. However, respondents “must provide PHMSA with the means by which the agency\ncan accurately determine the company’s true financial condition.”6 PHMSA has previously\ninstructed operators, including IDPC’s President, that asserting a claim of financial hardship\nrequires that the company submit “accurate and reliable information on the financial condition”\nof the company.7 Thus, Respondent had notice that failure to provide such documentation in the\nResponse would be grounds for denial of such a claim.8 Since Respondent has again asserted a\nfinancial hardship argument without providing any supporting documentation, I find no basis for\nreducing or eliminating the proposed penalty on grounds of financial hardship. Respondent’s\nrequest to “reserve the right” to provide further information prior to issuance of this order is\ndenied pursuant to § 190.208, which required Respondent to submit all responsive material no\nlater than 30 days after its receipt of the Notice.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $49,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(3).\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49\nC.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.\nThe Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\n5 Response, at 2.\n6 In the Matter of Tampa Bay Pipeline Corp., Decision on Reconsideration, CPF No. 2-2005-6012, 2008 WL\n902910, at 2 (Mar. 31, 2008). See also, In the Matter of Tampa Pipeline Corporation, CPF 2-2008-6002, 2010 WL\n2228556, at 19 (April 26, 2010). The Notices and Final Orders in both of these matters were addressed to Robert\nRose, the president of both IDPC and the Tampa Pipeline Corporation.\n7 Id.\n8 Id.\n\n\n\nCPF 5-2018-6015\nPage 6\nFailure to pay the $49,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1-5 in the Notice for violations of\n49 C.F.R. §§ 194.7(b), 194.107(c)(1)(viii), 195.402(c)(3), 195.404(a)(3) and 195.440(a),\nrespectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of\nhazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to\nensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 194.7(b), (Item 1), Respondent must perform an\nIncident Management Team (tabletop exercise) and field equipment deployment\nexercise, and provide the records to the Director to verify that the drills have been\nperformed within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 194.107(c)(1)(viii), (Item 2), Respondent must\nproperly test emergency response equipment stored at the Boise Terminal and provide\nthe testing results to the Director to verify that testing occurred within 60 days of the\nFinal Order.\n3. With respect to the violation of § 195.402(c)(3), (Item 3), Respondent must\ndevelop a written procedure to establish the MOP for its pipeline system, and provide\nthe procedure to the Director for review and approval within 60 days of receipt of the\nFinal Order.\n4. With respect to the violation of § 195.404(a)(3), (Item 4), Respondent must\nprovide records to the Director to verify how it previously established the MOP of its\npipeline system. If the process by which the MOP was established is unknown, it\nmust re-establish the MOP of the pipelines (both the 8- and 4-inch lines) in\naccordance with Part 195, and provide the records to the Director within 60 days of\nreceipts of the Final Order.\n5. With respect to the violation of § 195.440(a), (Item 5), Respondent must develop\nand implement a written Public Awareness Program that follows API RP 1162,\nincluding addressing all the identified deficiencies set forth in Item 5 of the Notice,\nand provide the written program to the Director within 60 days of receipt of the Final\nOrder.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\n\n\n\nCPF 5-2018-6015\nPage 7\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the\nDirector. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated\nwith preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated\nwith replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\neach day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and\nmeet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays\nthe payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective\naction, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nAugust 9, 2019\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n520186015_Closure Letter_06302025_(17-155733S)_text.pdf\n\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tampapc@outlook.com\nJune 30, 2025\nMr. Robert Rose\nPresident\nIdaho Pipeline Corporation\nPO Box 15770\nSarasota, FL 34277\nCPF 5-2018-6015\nClosure Letter\nDear Mr. Rose:\nOn August 9, 2019, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Idaho Pipeline Corporation a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order\nincluded a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review and\nconfirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that you have complied with\nthe terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed, and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nDustin Hubbard\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 D. Fehling (#17-155733S)\n\n520186015_NOPV PCP PCO_07192018_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJuly 19, 2018\nMr. Robert Rose\nPresident\nIdaho Pipeline Corporation\nPO Box 35236\nSarasota, FL 34242\nCPF 5-2018-6015\nDear Mr. Rose:\nOn September 5 through 8, and September 18 through 21, 2017, representatives of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.), inspected your Boise\nAviation Fuel Pipeline (BAFP) in Boise, Idaho.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items\ninspected and the probable violations are:\n\n\n\n1. §194.7 Operation restrictions and interim operating authorization.\n(a) . . .\n(b) An operator must operate its onshore pipeline facilities in accordance with\nthe applicable response plan.\nAND\n§194.107 General response plan requirements.\n(a) . . .\n(c) Each response plan must include:\n(1) A core plan consisting of –\n(ix) Drill program – an operator will satisfy the requirement for a drill program\nby following the National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP)\nguidelines. An operator choosing not to follow PREP guidelines must have a drill\nprogram that is equivalent to PREP. The operator must describe the drill\nprogram in the response plan and OPS will determine if the program is\nequivalent to PREP.\nIdaho Pipeline Corporation’s (IDPC) oil spill response plan states, “IDPC will follow the\nPREP guidelines.”1 IDPC failed to operate its onshore pipeline facility in accordance with its\napplicable response plan by failing to follow the PREP guidelines. Specifically, IDPC failed\nto satisfy the general response plan requirement of inclusion of a drill program that followed\nthe National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) guidelines, other than\nquarterly notification drills, in accordance with §194.107(c)(1)(ix).2 An operator must follow\nSection 5 of the PREP for conducting drills and complying with the established frequency for\neach type of drill. This includes conducting Incident Management Team (IMT) exercises and\nEquipment Deployment drills consistent with the triennial cycle (annually). 3 Further, Section\n7 of IDPC’s Facility Response Plan (FRP) also required that these drills be conducted on the\ntriennial cycle and properly documented and filed for future reference (at least 3 years\ninsuring availability to PHMSA).4\nAt the time of the inspection, it was noted that IDPC failed to perform an IMT exercise or\nequipment deployment exercise under Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of PREP, and Section 7 of its FRP\n1 Idaho Pipeline Corporation Facility Response Plan, Sequence number 1581, Section 6.\n2 IDPC also failed to have a drill program that is equivalent to PREP, as determined by OPS.\n3 See PREP Section 5.2 (noting that IMT exercises should be conducted “as indicated in the response plan and, at\na minimum, consistent with the triennial cycle (annually)”); see also PREP Section 5.3 (noting that equipment\ndeployment drills should be conducted “as indicated in the response plan and, at a minimum, consistent with the\ntriennial cycle (annually)”).\n4 See IDPC Facility Response Plan, Section 7 “Drill Procedures” at 7-1 (requiring that IMT exercises and\nequipment deployment drills be conducted yearly).\n2\n\n\n\nfor the last triennial cycle.5 During the PHMSA inspection, IDPC failed to provide any\ndocumentation to indicate that it completed the drills in the required triennial cycle.\n2. §194.107 General response plan requirements.\n(a) . . .\n(c) Each response plan must include:\n(1) A core plan consisting of –\n(viii) Equipment testing.\nIDPC failed to perform equipment testing in accordance with §194.107(c)(1)(viii). At the time\nof the inspection, IDPC had response equipment at its terminal; however, IDPC was not able\nto provide any documentation to evidence that it, or the Oil Spill Response Organization\n(OSRO)6 had performed testing of this emergency response equipment.\n3. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) . . .\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(1) . . .\n(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with\neach of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.\nIDPC failed to prepare and follow a written procedure for operating, maintaining and\nrepairing the pipeline in accordance with Subpart F by failing to have a procedure for\nestablishing maximum operating pressure (MOP) in accordance with §195.406. At the time of\nthe inspection, IDPC’s Operations and Maintenance Manual failed to provide a written\nprocedure for establishing maximum operating pressures for its eight (8) and four (4) inch\npipelines in accordance with §195.406.\n4. §195.404 Maps and records.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its pipeline systems\nthat include at least the following information:\n(1) . . .\n(3) The maximum operating pressure of each pipeline.\nIDPC failed to maintain current records of its pipeline system to include the maximum\noperating pressure (MOP) in accordance with §195.404(a)(3). At the time of the inspection,\nIDPC could not produce any records or calculations which were used to establish the\nmaximum operating pressures of both the eight (8) and four (4) inch pipelines. During the\n5 In June 2017, PHMSA issued a Warning Letter, CPF 5-2017-6019W, to IDPC for failure to perform drills\npursuant to Section 7 of its Drill Procedures.\n6 IDPC’s FRP at 4-6.\n3\n\n\n\ninspection, interviews with IDPC’s Terminal Manager revealed that the design engineer for\nthe 8- and 4-inch pipelines passed away many years earlier and IDPC failed to obtain any\nrecords and calculations for establishing MOP on these lines.\n5. §195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing\npublic education program that follows the guidance provided in the American\nPetroleum Institute's (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by\nreference, see §195.3).\nIDPC failed to properly develop and implement a written continuing public education\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in API RP 1162 in accordance with §195.440(a).\nAt the time of the inspection, it was noted that although a Public Awareness Program had\nbeen established, the program failed to include the following API RP 1162 guidance:\n API RP Section 2.5 - No statement of management's support could be found in the\nPublic Awareness Program.\n API RP Section 1.2 - The program fails to clearly identify the specific pipeline\nsystems and facilities to be included in the program, along with the unique attributes\nand characteristics of each. The program does mention that the pipeline transports\naviation jet fuel but does not mention the breakout tanks or other attributes located at\nthe Gowen Road Facility in accordance with §195.440(b).\n API RP Section 3 - The operator’s program has failed to identify all the stakeholder\naudiences included in the “Affected Public”. The operator has not identified three (3)\nbusinesses near their facilities. These businesses have been in operation for multiple\nyears. The operator’s program states, “Section 3.8.1 - The public affected in areas\nwhere we operate - page 9, \"When identifying the affected public, IDPC personnel will\ntake a common sense approach. Since the majority of the pipeline is in an unpopulated\narea, any business or residence within a 300 foot radius and in sight of the line will be\nidentified as affected public.\"\n API RP Section 3.10 - The stakeholder audiences, message type, frequency, and\ndelivery methods. The section states that Chapter 5 lists the specified media and\nfrequency for each target audience. However, there is no Chapter 5 found in the\nprogram, and no defined messages, delivery methods, or delivery frequencies are\nfound in the program. Additionally, no \"other relevant factors\" or discussions\nregarding consideration of relevant factors were found in the program in accordance\nwith §195.440(c).\n4\n\n\n\n API RP Section 7 - Documentation of annual program review, performed by the\nTerminal Manager, is vague and the information contained is incomplete.\n API RP Section 8.2 - While contact with excavators is tracked, effectiveness review\nwith all other stakeholder audiences is not.\n API RP Section 2.3 - During the records inspection of IDPC’s public awareness\nprogram, IDPC does not have a process for identifying whether other languages are\nrequired. In discussion with the Terminal Manager, it was stated that in his experience\nall stakeholder audiences spoke English. Without a process in place, there is no way to\ndetermine if other languages must be addressed by the public awareness program in\naccordance with §195.440(g).\n API RP Section 8.4 - The program does not specify how self-assessments and\neffectiveness evaluations will be conducted. The program does not state the frequency\nfor evaluations other than to say it will periodically measure the effectiveness in\naccordance with §195.440(i).\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to\nexceed $209,002 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,090,022\nfor a related series of violations. For violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, the\nmaximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty\nnot to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has\nreviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable\nviolations and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $49,000\nas follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n4 $49,000\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to Items 1 through 5, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Idaho Pipeline\nCorporation. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a\npart of this Notice.\nResponse 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. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly\navailable. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\n5\n\n\n\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted\ninformation qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request\na hearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this\nNotice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and\nauthorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this\nNotice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this\nNotice, we propose that you submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from\nreceipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2018-6015 and, for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nKim West\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 D. Fehling/C. Carroll (#155754)\n6\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 Idaho Pipeline Corporation a Compliance\nOrder incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Idaho\nPipeline Corporation with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to Idaho Pipeline\nCorporation’s (IDPC) failure to conduct Incident Management Team (IMT)\nexercises and equipment deployment exercises within the required intervals\nunder PREP in accordance with §194.107(c)(1)(ix), IDPC must perform a IMT\n(tabletop exercise) and field equipment deployment exercise, and provide the\nrecords to PHMSA’s Western Region Director (Director) to verify that the\ndrills have been performed within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order.\nIn regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to IDPC’s failure to test\nemergency response equipment stored at the Boise Terminal, IDPC must\nproperly test the equipment and provide the testing results to the Director to\nverify the testing occurred within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order.\nIn regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to IDPC’s failure to\nprepare and follow a written procedure for establishing maximum operating\npressure (MOP) in accordance with §195.406, IDPC must develop a written\nprocedure to establish MOP, and provide the procedure to the Director for\nreview and approval within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order.\nIn regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to IDPC’s failure to\nmaintain records and calculations in accordance with §195.404(a)(3), IDPC\nmust provide records to the Director to verify how it had previously\nestablished the MOP of its pipeline system. If the process by which the MOP\nwas established is unknown, it must re-establish the MOP of the pipelines\n(both the 8” and 4” lines) in accordance with Part 195, and provide the records\nto the Director within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order.\nIn regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to IDPC’s failure to\nproperly develop and implement a written continuing public education\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in API RP 1162, IDPC must\ndevelop and implement a written Public Awareness Program that follows API\nRP 1162, including addressing all the identified deficiencies set forth in Item 5\nof the Notice, and provide the written program to the Director within 60 days\nof receipt of the Final Order.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Idaho Pipeline Corporation maintain\ndocumentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this\nCompliance Order and submit the total to the Kim West, Director, Western\nRegion, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated\nwith preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2)\ntotal cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline\n7\n\n\n\ninfrastructure.","truncated":false,"body_characters":38245}