{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 52023041NOA","title":"BETA OFFSHORE — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2023-12-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.402(a), 195.446(b)(1), 195.446(c)(1), 195.446(c)(2), 195.446(d)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52023041noa.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52023041noa.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52023041noa","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/52023041NOA","body":"Notice of Amendment involving BETA OFFSHORE. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.446(b)(1),  195.446(c)(1),  195.446(c)(2),  195.446(d)(1). The case was opened on 2023-12-26 and is reported as closed as of 2026-04-08. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n52023041NOA_Closure Letter_04082026_(22-232644).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023041NOA/52023041NOA_Closure%20Letter_04082026_(22-232644).pdf\n\n52023041NOA_Closure Letter_04082026_(22-232644)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023041NOA/52023041NOA_Closure%20Letter_04082026_(22-232644)_text.pdf\n\n52023041NOA_Consent Agreement and Order_04162025_(22-232644).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023041NOA/52023041NOA_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_04162025_(22-232644).pdf\n\n52023041NOA_Consent Agreement and Order_04162025_(22-232644)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023041NOA/52023041NOA_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_04162025_(22-232644)_text.pdf\n\n52023041NOA_Notice of Amendment_12262023_(22-232644).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023041NOA/52023041NOA_Notice%20of%20Amendment_12262023_(22-232644).pdf\n\n52023041NOA_Notice of Amendment_12262023_(22-232644)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023041NOA/52023041NOA_Notice%20of%20Amendment_12262023_(22-232644)_text.pdf\n\n52023041NOA_Operator Withdrawal of Hearing Request_04212025_(22-232644).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023041NOA/52023041NOA_Operator%20Withdrawal%20of%20Hearing%20Request_04212025_(22-232644).pdf\n\n52023041NOA_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_02042025_(22-232644).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023041NOA/52023041NOA_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_02042025_(22-232644).pdf\n\n52023041NOA_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_02042025_(22-232644)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023041NOA/52023041NOA_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_02042025_(22-232644)_text.pdf\n\n52023041NOA_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_02042025_(22-232644)_text.pdf\n\nDate: February 4, 2025\nFrom: Joseph St. Peter\nTo: File\nRe: Continuance of Informal Hearing in CPF No.’s 5-2023-041-NOA & 5-2023-042-NOPV\n(Beta Offshore (Amplify Energy Corp.))\nBy electronic mail on January 29, 2025, Kathleen Maitland and Alexandra Iorio, Counsel for\nWestern Region, and Brianne Kurdock, counsel for Amplify Energy Corp., submitted a status\nupdate indicating that the parties are currently engaged in settlement discussions and requested to\npostpone the current hearing date of February 20, 2025. The request is granted, and the informal\nhearing in this case will be held on Thursday May 8, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. Mountain Daylight Time\nat Western Region’s office in Lakewood, Colorado. Pre-hearing submissions under 49 CFR §\n190.211(d) are due no later than April 28, 2025.\n\n52023041NOA_Closure Letter_04082026_(22-232644)_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\n12300 West Dakota Avenue, Suite 340\nLakewood, Colorado 80228\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: martyn.willsher@amplifyenergy.com\nApril 8, 2026\nMr. Martyn Willsher\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nAmplify Energy Corporation.\n111 Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1240\nLong Beach, CA 90802\nCPF No’s. 5-2023-041-NOA & 5-2023-042-NOPV\nClosure Letter\nDear Mr. Willsher:\nOn April 16, 2025, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Amplify Energy Corporation (Amplify) a Consent Order incorporating the terms of the\nConsent Agreement between PHMSA and Amplify in the above-referenced case. This Order\nincluded a Compliance Terms requirement for Amplify to take certain corrective actions.\nPer the terms of the Consent Agreement, the Consent Agreement would terminate once the\nCompliance Terms of Section V were deemed satisfied. After a review of the documents\nAmplify provided on July 15, 2025 and August 14, 2025, it has been determined that the\nCompliance Terms have been satisfied.\nAccordingly, the Consent Agreement is terminated, and this case is now closed.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nDustin Hubbard\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n\n\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 J. Dunphy (#22-232644)\n\n52023041NOA_Notice of Amendment_12262023_(22-232644)_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: Martyn.Willsher@amplifyenergy.com\nDecember 26, 2023\nMr. Martyn Willsher\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nAmplify Energy Corp.\n111 Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1240\nLong Beach, CA 90802\nCPF 5-2023-041-NOA\nDear Mr. Willsher:\nFrom November 28 through December 2, 2022, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code,\ninspected Amplify Energy’s Beta Offshore procedures (Beta) and records for control room\nmanagement in Long Beach, California.\nBased on the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within Beta’s\nprocedures and records, as described below:\n1. §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. …\n\n\n\nBeta’s control room management procedures are inadequate to ensure safe operation of a\npipeline facility. Specifically, Beta’s procedure, Pipeline Specific Operations and Maintenance\nManual (PSOM), Section 19 - Control Room Management1 does not contain instructions for\nconducting and documenting the annual review.\nTherefore, Beta must amend its procedure to provide instructions for conducting and\ndocumenting the required procedure review once each calendar year, not to exceed 15 months.\n2. §195.446 Control room management.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Roles and responsibilities. Each operator must define the roles and\nresponsibilities of a controller during normal, abnormal, and emergency operating\nconditions. To provide for a controller's prompt and appropriate response to\noperating conditions, an operator must define each of the following:\n(1) A controller's authority and responsibility to make decisions and take actions\nduring normal operations; …\nBeta’s control room management procedures are inadequate to ensure safe operation of a\npipeline facility. Specifically, Beta’s procedures fail to clearly define the roles and\nresponsibilities of controllers during normal operating conditions. Beta’s procedure BPS-005 --\nStart Up Pipeline Beta Shipping Pipeline 3, fails to adequately define the roles and\nresponsibilities of the on-shore Pipeline Technicians and the Elly Control Room Operators when\nmaking on-shore deliveries to the Crimson Pipeline. BPS-005 – Start-Up Pipeline Beta Shipping\nPipeline 3 is unclear as to whether the Beta Pump Station or the Elly Control Room controls the\ndelivery to Crimson Pipeline.\nAdditionally, Beta’s procedure, PSOM Section 19 - Control Room Management2, does not\nrequire controllers to stay at the console to verify all SCADA commands that have been initiated\nare fulfilled and that commands given via verbal communications are acknowledged before\nleaving the console for any reason.\nTherefore, Beta must amend its procedure to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the\ncontrollers during normal operating conditions as detailed above.\n3. §195.446 Control room management.\n(a) . . . .\n(c) Provide adequate information. Each operator must provide its controllers with\nthe information, tools, processes, and procedures necessary for the controllers to\n1 See page 32 of PSOM Section 19 - Control Room Management, under “Annual Review of the Fatigue\nManagement Program to Achieve Continuous Improvement”.\n2 See page 15-16 of PSOM Section 19 - Control Room Management, Section 304 - R&Rs Shift Change Information\n& Accountability.\n\n\n\ncarry out the roles and responsibilities the operator has defined by performing each\nof the following:\n(1) Implement API RP 1165 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) whenever a\nSCADA system is added, expanded or replaced, unless the operator demonstrates\nthat certain provisions of API RP 1165 are not practical for the SCADA system\nused; …\nBeta’s control room management procedures are inadequate to ensure safe operation of a\npipeline facility. Specifically, Beta’s procedure, PSOM Section 19 - Control Room Management\nRev#20014-1, fails to clearly define the types of changes to the SCADA system that constitute\nadditions, expansions, or replacements. PSOM Section 19 subsection 402 Pipeline\nSCADA/Control Panel Displays paraphrases §195.446(c)(1) and API RP 1165 without providing\nguidance on what changes would trigger the requirement to implement API RP 1165.\nTherefore, Beta must amend its procedures to clearly identify and define the types of changes to\nthe SCADA system that constitute additions, expansions, or replacements under the meaning of\nthe CRM rule.\n4. §195.446 Control room management.\n(a) . . . .\n(c) Provide adequate information. Each operator must provide its controllers with\nthe information, tools, processes, and procedures necessary for the controllers to\ncarry out the roles and responsibilities the operator has defined by performing each\nof the following:\n(1) . . . .\n(2) Conduct a point-to-point verification between SCADA displays and related field\nequipment when field equipment is added or moved and when other changes that\naffect pipeline safety are made to field equipment or SCADA displays; …\nBeta’s control room management procedures are inadequate to ensure safe operation of a\npipeline facility. Specifically, Beta’s procedure, PSOM Section 19 - Control Room\nManagement3, does not define the terms 'point' or 'safety-related point', and in Section 608 -\nOperations, Maintenance, Assessment, and Monitoring. Upon review of the procedure, it was\nobserved that the term point is used in multiple and inconsistent ways. Additionally, the\nprocedure does not provide a process for establishing points on the pipeline, – including the\nprocess for selecting initial setpoint values for points on the pipeline.\nTherefore, Beta must amend its procedures to define the terms ‘point’ and ‘safety-related point’\nand clearly identify the process for establishing points on the pipeline including how setpoint\nvalues are selected for points on the pipeline.\n5. §195.446 Control room management.\n(a) . . . .\n3 See page 34-51 of PSOM Section 19 - Control Room Management, Section 600 – Alarm Management Plan.\n\n\n\n(d) Fatigue mitigation. Each operator must implement the following methods to\nreduce the risk associated with controller fatigue that could inhibit a controller's\nability to carry out the roles and responsibilities the operator has defined:\n(1) Establish shift lengths and schedule rotations that provide controllers off-duty\ntime sufficient to achieve eight hours of continuous sleep; …\nBeta’s control room management procedures are inadequate to ensure safe operation of a\npipeline facility. Specifically, Beta’s procedure, PSOM Section 19 -- Control Room\nManagement4 does not address methods to mitigate travel fatigue associated with controllers\ncommuting long distances for their first controller shift at the duty station. Commuting to Beta\nOffshore Platform Elly, located off the southern California coast, can include a one or two-hour\nboat ride from shore to the platform in addition to the time it takes the controller to commute\nfrom their home to the crew boat pier. However, Beta’s procedures for creating schedule\nrotations does not take into consideration commuting time between shifts as part of its fatigue\nrisk mitigation measures.\nTherefore, Beta must amend its procedures to address operator-specific fatigue risk and provide\nfatigue mitigation measures for this risk to assure pipeline controllers are able to safely operate\nthe pipeline.\nResponse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206. Enclosed as\npart of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nCompliance Proceedings.\nPlease refer to this document and note the response options. Be advised that all material you\nsubmit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you\nbelieve that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5\nU.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document, you must provide a second copy of\nthe document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an\nexplanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment\nunder 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, revised\nprocedures, or a request for a hearing under §190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of\nreceipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in\nthis Notice without further notice to you and to issue an Order Directing Amendment. If your\nplans or procedures are found inadequate, as alleged in this Notice, you may be ordered to amend\nyour plans or procedures to correct the inadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.206). If you are not\ncontesting this Notice, we propose that you submit your amended procedures to my office within\n30 days of receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good\n4 See page 22-33 of PSOM Section 19 - Control Room Management, Section 500 – Fatigue Management.\n\n\n\ncause. Once the inadequacies identified herein have been addressed in your amended\nprocedures, this enforcement action will be closed.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that BETA maintain documentation of the safety improvement\ncosts associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment (preparation/revision of plans,\nprocedures) and submit the total to Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration. In correspondence concerning this matter, please\nrefer to CPF 5-2023-041-NOA, and for each document you submit, please provide a copy in\nelectronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nDustin Hubbard\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 J. Dunphy (#22-232644)\nDan Steward - Dan.Steward@amplifyenergy.com\nRick Armstrong - Rick.Armstrong@amplifyenergy.com\n\n52023041NOA_Consent Agreement and Order_04162025_(22-232644)_text.pdf\n\nApril 16, 2025\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: martyn.willsher@amplifyenergy.com\nMr. Martyn Willsher\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nAmplify Energy Corp.\n111 Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1240\nLong Beach, CA 90802\nCPF Nos. 5-2023-041-NOA & 5-2023-042-NOPV\nDear Mr. Willsher:\nEnclosed please find a Consent Order incorporating the terms of the Consent Agreement between the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and Beta Operating Company,\nLLC d/b/a Beta Offshore, which was executed on March 26, 2025. Service of the Consent Order and\nConsent Agreement by electronic mail is deemed effective upon the date of transmission and\nacknowledgement of receipt, or as otherwise provided under 49 CFR § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure: Consent Order and Consent Agreement\n\n\n\ncc: Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nBrianne Kurdock, Esq., Counsel for Respondent, Babst Calland, bkurdock@babstcalland.com.\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 )\nBeta Offshore, ) CPF Nos. 5-2023-041-NOA &\na subsidiary of Amplify Energy, Inc., ) 5-2023-042-NOPV\nRespondent. )\n)\n)\n)\n)\nCONSENT ORDER\nBy letters dated December 26, 2023, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), issued a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order and a Notice of Amendment (Notices) to Beta Operating Company, LLC d/b/a\nBeta Offshore (Beta or Respondent).\nIn response to the Notices, Respondent requested hearings on all Items, contesting the underlying\nviolations, the proposed compliance order, and the alleged inadequacies within the Notices. Beta\nalso asked for the opportunity to meet informally with PHMSA to discuss the allegations in the\nNotices. Respondent and PHMSA (The Parties) subsequently met to discuss the issues raised in the\nResponses. As a result of those discussions, as explained in more detail below, the Parties have\nagreed to a Consent Agreement by which makes findings of violation and inadequacy, includes\nmodified compliance terms, and acknowledges the corrective actions the Respondent has taken to\nresolve several of the allegations.\nAccordingly, the Consent Agreement is hereby approved and incorporated by reference into this\nConsent Order. Beta is hereby ordered to comply with the terms of the Consent Agreement\npursuant to its terms. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., failure to comply with this Consent\nOrder may result in the assessment of civil penalties as set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49\nC.F.R. § 190.223, or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of\nthe United States.\nThe terms and conditions of this Consent Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\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 )\nBeta Offshore ) CPF No. 5-2023-041-NOA &\na subsidiary of Amplify Energy Corp. ) CPF No. 5-2023-042-NOPV\nRespondent. )\n)\n)\n)\n)\nCONSENT AGREEMENT\nFrom November 28 through December 2, 2022, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter\n601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the\nfacilities and records of Beta Operating Company, LLC d/b/a Beta Offshore (Beta or Respondent)\ncontrol room in Long Beach, California.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letters dated December 26, 2023, a Notice of Amendment (NOA) and Notice of Probable\nViolation and Proposed Compliance Order (NOPV), which also included a warning pursuant to 49\nCFR § 190.205. In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.206, PHMSA alleged inadequacies in Beta’s\nprocedures. In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.207, PHMSA alleged that Beta had committed three\nviolations of 49 CFR Part 195 (Items 1, 2, and 4), and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain\nmeasures to correct the alleged violations. The NOPV also included a warning item (Item 3) and\nadvised the operator to correct the probable violation or face potential future enforcement action.\nOn January 19, 2024, Beta responded to the NOA and NOPV (the Notices). Beta requested an\ninformal conference, or alternatively, an administrative hearing. Thereafter, Respondent and\nPHMSA (collectively, the Parties) met on several occasions to discuss the allegations. Between\nSeptember and December 2024, the Parties discussed amendments of the relevant procedures. As\na result, the Parties have agreed to resolve this matter via consent order and agreement. This\nAgreement will serve the public interest by promoting safety and protection of the environment.\nPursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq. and 49 CFR Part 190, and upon consent and agreement, the\nParties hereby agree as follows:\n\n\n\nI. General Provisions\n1. Respondent acknowledges that as the operator of the pipeline facilities subject to\nthe Notices, Respondent and its referenced pipeline facilities are subject to the jurisdiction of the\nFederal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and administrative\norders issued thereunder. For purposes of this Consent Agreement (Agreement), Respondent\nacknowledges that it received proper notice of PHMSA’s actions in these proceedings and that the\nNotices state claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and\nthe regulations and orders issued thereunder.\n2. After Respondent returns this signed Agreement to PHMSA, the Agency’s\nrepresentative will present it to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, recommending that\nthe Associate Administrator adopt the terms of this Agreement by issuing an administrative order\n(Consent Order) incorporating the terms of this Agreement. The terms of this Agreement constitute\nan offer of settlement until accepted by the Associate Administrator. Once accepted, the Associate\nAdministrator will issue a Consent Order incorporating the terms of this Agreement.\n3. Respondent consents to the issuance of the Consent Order, and hereby waives any\nfurther procedural requirements with respect to its issuance. Respondent waives all rights to contest\nthe adequacy of notice, or the validity of the Consent Order or this Agreement, including all rights\nto administrative or judicial hearings or appeals, except for the Dispute Resolution provisions set\nforth herein. Respondent agrees to withdraw its requests for an administrative hearing in these\nmatters upon receipt of the Consent Order.\n4. This Agreement shall apply to and be binding upon PHMSA and Respondent, its\nofficers, directors, and employees, and its successors, assigns, or other entities or persons otherwise\nbound by law. Respondent agrees to provide a copy of this Agreement and any incorporated work\nplans and schedules to all of Respondent’s officers, employees, and agents whose duties might\nreasonably include compliance with this Agreement.\n5. This Agreement constitutes the final, complete and exclusive agreement and\nunderstanding between the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in this Agreement. The\nParties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements or understandings relating to\nsettlement other than those expressly contained in this Agreement, except that the terms of this\nAgreement may be construed by reference to the Notices.\n6. Nothing in this Agreement affects or relieves Respondent of its responsibility to\ncomply with all applicable requirements of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et\nseq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. Nothing in this Agreement alters PHMSA's\nright of access, entry, inspection, and information gathering or PHMSA's authority to bring\nenforcement actions against Respondent pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, the\nregulations and orders issued thereunder, or any other provision of Federal or State law.\n7. For all transfers of ownership or operating responsibility of Respondent’s pipeline\nsystem referenced herein, Respondent will provide a copy of this Agreement to the prospective\n\n\n\ntransferee at least 30 days prior to such transfer. Respondent will provide written notice of the\ntransfer to the Director no later than 60 days after the transfer occurs.\n8. This Agreement does not waive or modify any Federal, State, or local laws or\nregulations that are applicable to Respondent’s pipeline systems. This Agreement is not a\npermit, or a modification of any permit, under any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations.\nRespondent remains responsible for achieving and maintaining compliance with all applicable\nFederal, State, and local laws, regulations and permits.\n9. This Agreement does not create rights in, or grant any cause of action to, any third\nparty, not party to this Agreement. The U.S. Department of Transportation is not liable for any\ninjuries or damages to persons or property arising from acts or omissions of Respondent or its\nofficers, employees, or agents carrying out the work required by this Agreement. Respondent\nagrees to hold harmless the U.S. Department of Transportation, its officers, employees, agents,\nand representatives from any and all causes of action arising from any acts or omissions of\nRespondent or its contractors in carrying out any work required by this Agreement.\n10. Respondent neither admits nor denies any allegations or conclusions in the\nNotices. Respondent agrees for purposes of this Agreement to accept the allegations in the NOA\nand NOPV as findings and to comply with the terms of this Agreement.\n11. This Agreement does not constitute a finding of violation of any other federal law\nor regulation and may not be used in any civil proceeding of any kind as evidence or proof of\nany fact, fault or liability, or as evidence of a violation of any law, rule, regulation, or\nrequirement, except in a proceeding to enforce the provisions of this Agreement.\nFindings of Inadequacy - NOA\n12. Item 1 - 49 CFR § 195.402(a): The NOA alleged Beta’s Pipeline Specific\nOperations and Maintenance Manual (O&M Manual), Section 19 – Control Management, did not\ncontain instructions for conducting and documenting the annual review required by the pipeline\nsafety regulations. Beta contested this Item and the Parties engaged in discussions to clarify the\nallegations in the NOA. Without admission, Respondent accepts the procedures as alleged in the\nNOA as inadequate and has developed revised procedures which have been submitted to PHMSA\nfor review. The Director has accepted these revised procedures as adequate, and no further action\nis necessary.\n13. Item 2 - 49 CFR § 195.446(b)(1): The NOA alleged Beta’s procedures failed to\nclearly define the roles and responsibilities of controllers during normal operating conditions\nincluding when making onshore deliveries to the Crimson Pipeline. Beta contested this Item and\nthe Parties engaged in discussions to clarify the allegations in the NOA. Beta is currently in the\nprocess of amending the procedures. PHMSA commends Beta’s prompt efforts to strengthen its\nprocedures to ensure pipeline safety. Without admission, Respondent accepts the procedures as\nalleged in the NOA as inadequate.\nII.\n\n\n\n14. Item 3 - 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(1): The NOA alleged Beta’s procedures failed to\nclearly define the types of changes to the SCADA system that constitute additions, expansion and\nreplacements that would require implementation of API RP 1165. Beta contested this Item and the\nParties engaged in discussions to clarify the allegations in the NOA. Without admission,\nRespondent accepts the procedures as alleged in the NOA as inadequate and has developed revised\nprocedures which have been submitted to PHMSA for review. The Director has accepted these\nrevised procedures as adequate, and no further action is necessary.\n15. Item 4 - 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(2): The NOA alleged Beta’s procedures did not\ndefine the terms “point” and “safety-related point” and did not define a process for establishing\npoints on a pipeline including how to select initial setpoint values for points on the pipeline. Beta\ncontested this Item and the Parties engaged in discussions to clarify the allegations in the NOA.\nWithout admission, Respondent accepts the procedures as alleged in the NOA as inadequate and\nhas developed revised procedures which have been submitted to PHMSA for review. The Director\nhas accepted these revised procedures as adequate, and no further action is necessary.\n16. Item 5 - 49 CFR § 195.446(d)(1): The NOA alleged Beta’s procedures did not\naddress methods to mitigate travel fatigue associated with controllers commuting long distances\nfor their first controller shift at the duty station. Beta contested this Item and the Parties engaged\nin discussions to clarify the allegations in the NOA. Without admission, Respondent accepts the\nprocedures as alleged in the NOA as inadequate and has developed revised procedures which have\nbeen submitted to PHMSA for review. The Director has accepted these revised procedures as\nadequate, and no further action is necessary.\nIII. Findings of Violation - NOPV\n17. Item 1 - 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(3): The NOPV alleged Beta failed to test and verify\nits internal communication plan as required. Specifically, the NOPV alleged that during inspection,\nBeta failed to provide records demonstrating that Beta had tested and verified its internal\ncommunications plan at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months, as\nrequired by its O&M Manual for the calendar years of 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. Beta\ncontested this Item and the Parties engaged in discussions to clarify the allegations in the NOPV.\nWithout admission, Beta accepts PHMSA’s finding of violation of 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(3).\n18. Item 2 - 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(4): The NOPV alleged that Beta failed to test its\nbackup SCADA systems as required. Specifically, the NOPV alleged that during the inspection,\nBeta could not provide records to demonstrate that Beta had tested its backup SCADA systems at\nleast once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months, for the calendar years of\n2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. Beta contested this Item and the Parties engaged in discussions\nto clarify the allegations in the NOPV. Beta is currently in the process of amending the procedures.\nPHMSA commends Beta’s prompt efforts to strengthen its procedures to ensure pipeline safety\nWithout admission, Beta accepts PHMSA’s finding of violation of 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(4).\n19. Item 4 - 49 CFR § 195.446(e)(4): The NOPV alleged Beta failed to conduct a\nreview of the alarm management plan at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, to determine the effectiveness of the plan, as required. Specifically, the\n\n\n\nNOPV alleged that during the inspection, Beta could not provide any documentation\ndemonstrating a review of its alarm management plan. Beta contested this Item and the Parties\nengaged in discussions to clarify the allegations in the NOPV. Without admission, Beta accepts\nPHMSA’s finding of violation of 49 CFR § 195.446(e)(4).\n20. Items 1, 2, and 4 will be considered by PHMSA as prior offenses in any future\nPHMSA enforcement action taken against Respondent for the five (5) year period following the\nEffective Date of this Agreement.\nIV. Warning Item:\n21. Item 3 - 49 CFR § 195.446(e)(3): The NOPV alleged that Beta failed to verify the\ncorrect safety-related alarm set-point values and alarm descriptions when associated field\ninstruments are calibrated or changed and at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to\nexceed 15 months, as required. Specifically, the NOPV alleged that a review of Beta’s records\nduring the inspection revealed that the 2019 and 2020 reviews of safety-related alarm set-point\nvalues and alarm descriptions exceeded the 15-month maximum review interval as the 2019 review\nwas dated May 19, 2019, and the 2020 review was dated September 20, 2020. This Item was\nbrought as a warning item and does not constitute a finding of violation.\n22. For Warning Item 3, if OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent\ninspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nV. Compliance Terms:\n23. Item 2 (NOA) – 49 CFR § 195.446(b)(1): As stated above, the NOA alleged\nBeta’s procedures failed to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of controllers during\nnormal operating conditions including when making onshore deliveries to the Crimson Pipeline.\nBeta must amend its procedures to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of\nthe controllers during normal operating conditions including when making onshore deliveries on\nthe Crimson Pipeline within 90 days of the Effective Date.\n24. Item 1 (NOPV) - 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(3): The NOPV proposed certain\ncompliance actions to address the allegations in the NOPV. Beta contested the proposed actions\nand the Parties engaged in discussions to clarify the proposal. Respondent developed a revised\ninternal communication plan and submitted it to PHMSA for review. PHMSA finds these\nrevisions acceptable.\nBeta must conduct the required testing and verification of the amended internal\ncommunications plan within 120 days of the Effective Date.\n25. Item 2 (NOPV) - 49 CFR § 195.446(c)(4): The NOPV proposed certain\ncompliance actions to address the allegations in the NOPV. Beta contested the proposed actions\nand the Parties engaged in discussions to clarify the proposal. Beta is currently in the process of\namending its procedures to allow for the testing of Elly personnel who, in an emergency, can\n\n\n\nmake deliveries to downstream pipelines. Beta will also amend its procedures to allow for the\ntesting of the backup SCADA system including the testing of the backup servers that were not in\nexistence at the time of the inspection.\nBeta must complete those amendments and submit the revised procedures along\nwith records demonstrating that the procedures have been tested within 120 days of the Effective\nDate.\n26. Item 4 (NOPV) - 49 CFR § 195.446(e)(4): The NOPV proposed certain\ncompliance actions to address the allegations in the NOPV. Beta contested the proposed actions\nand the Parties engaged in discussions to clarify the proposal. Respondent developed a revised\nAlarm Management Plan procedures and submitted it to PHMSA for review. PHMSA finds\nthese revisions acceptable.\nBeta must conduct a review of the amended Alarm Management Plan and submit\nrecords of that review within 120 days of the Effective Date.\nVI. Enforcement:\n27. This Agreement is subject to all enforcement authorities available to PHMSA under\n49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and 49 CFR Part 190, including administrative civil penalties under 49\nU.S.C. § 60122, of up to $266,015 per violation for each day the violation continues and referral of\nthe case to the Attorney General for judicial enforcement, if PHMSA determines that Respondent\nis not complying with the terms of this Agreement in accordance with the determinations made by\nthe Director, or in accordance with decisions of the Associate Administrator if resolved pursuant to\nthe Dispute Resolution process herein. The maximum civil penalty amounts are adjusted annually\nfor inflation. See 49 CFR § 190.223. All time frames to complete the compliance terms referenced\nin Section V (Compliance Terms) are automatically incorporated into this Agreement and are\nenforceable in the same manner.\nVII. Review and Approval Process:\n28. With respect to any submission under Section V (Compliance Terms) of this\nAgreement that requires the approval of the Director, the Director may: (a) approve, in whole or\nin part, the submission; (b) approve the submission on specified, reasonable conditions; (c)\ndisapprove, in whole or in part, the submission; or (d) any combination of the foregoing. If the\nDirector approves, approves in part, or approves with conditions, Respondent will take all actions\nas approved by the Director, subject to Respondent’s right to invoke the dispute resolution\nprocedures with respect to any conditions the Director identifies. If the Director disapproves all or\nany portion of the submission, the Director will provide Respondent a written notice of the\ndeficiencies. Respondent will correct all deficiencies within the time specified by the Director and\nresubmit it for approval.\nVIII. Dispute Resolution:\n29. The Director and Respondent will informally attempt to resolve any disputes arising\nunder this Agreement, including any decision of the Director under the terms of Section V\n\n\n\n(Compliance Terms). If Respondent and the Director are unable to informally resolve the dispute\nwithin 15 calendar days after the dispute is first raised, in writing, to the Director, Respondent may\nsubmit a written request for a determination resolving the dispute from the Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety, PHMSA. Such request must be made in writing and provided to the Director,\ncounsel for the Western Region, and to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, no later\nthan 10 calendar days from the 15-day deadline for informal resolution referenced in this\nparagraph. Along with its request, Respondent must provide the Associate Administrator with all\ninformation Respondent believes is relevant to the dispute. Decisions of the Associate\nAdministrator under this paragraph will constitute final agency action. The existence of a dispute\nand PHMSA’s consideration of matters placed in dispute will not excuse, toll, or suspend any term\nor timeframe for completion of any work to be performed under this Agreement during the\npendency of the dispute resolution process.\nIX. Effective Date:\n30. The term “Effective Date,” as used herein, is the date on which the Consent Order\nis issued by the Associate Administrator, PHMSA, incorporating the terms of this Agreement.\nX. Recordkeeping and Information Disclosure:\n31. Unless otherwise required in this Agreement, Respondent agrees to maintain\nrecords demonstrating compliance with all requirements of this Agreement for a period of at least\nfive (5) years following completion of all work to be performed. For any reports, plans, or other\ndeliverables required to be submitted to PHMSA pursuant to this Agreement, Respondent may\nassert a claim of business confidentiality or other protections applicable to the release of\ninformation by PHMSA, covering part or all of the information required to be submitted to\nPHMSA pursuant to this Agreement in accordance with 49 CFR Part 7. Respondent must mark\nthe claim of confidentiality in writing on each page and include a statement specifying the grounds\nfor each claim of confidentially. PHMSA determines release of any information submitted\npursuant to this Agreement in accordance with 49 CFR Part 7, the Freedom of Information Act, 5\nU.S.C. § 552, DOT and PHMSA policies, and other applicable regulations and Executive Orders.\nXI. Modification:\n32. The terms of this Agreement may be modified by mutual agreement of the Parties.\nSuch modifications must be in writing and signed by both parties.\nXII. Termination:\n33. This Agreement will remain in effect until the Compliance Terms in Section V are\ndeemed satisfied, as determined by the Director. The Agreement shall not terminate until the\nDirector confirms, in writing, that the Agreement is terminated in accordance with this paragraph.\nNothing in this Agreement prevents Respondent from completing any of the obligations earlier\nthan the deadlines provided for in this Agreement.\n\n\n\nXIII. Ratification:\n34. The Parties’ undersigned representatives certify that they are fully authorized to\nenter into the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to execute and legally bind such party\nto this document.\n35. The Parties hereby agree to all findings, conditions, and terms of this Agreement.\n[Signature Lines on Following Page]\n\n\n\nFor Beta Operating Company, LLC:\nDate\nFor PHMSA:\nDirector, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nDate","truncated":false,"body_characters":39451}