{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 52025039NOPV","title":"WBI ENERGY TRANSMISSION, INC. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":"2025-12-08","effective_on":null,"summary":"OPEN notice of probable violation citing 192.631(a), 192.631(a)(2), 192.631(c)(1), 192.631(e)(2), 192.631(h)(1), 192.631(h)(2).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52025039nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52025039nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52025039nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/52025039NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving WBI ENERGY TRANSMISSION, INC.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.631(a),  192.631(a)(2),  192.631(c)(1),  192.631(e)(2),  192.631(h)(1),  192.631(h)(2). The case was opened on 2025-12-08 and is reported as open. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n52025039NOPV_Final Order_04142026_(24-296470).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52025039NOPV/52025039NOPV_Final%20Order_04142026_(24-296470).pdf\n\n52025039NOPV_Final Order_04142026_(24-296470)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52025039NOPV/52025039NOPV_Final%20Order_04142026_(24-296470)_text.pdf\n\n52025039NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_01072026_(24-296470).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52025039NOPV/52025039NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_01072026_(24-296470).pdf\n\n52025039NOPV_PCO_12082025_(24-296470).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52025039NOPV/52025039NOPV_PCO_12082025_(24-296470).pdf\n\n52025039NOPV_PCO_12082025_(24-296470)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52025039NOPV/52025039NOPV_PCO_12082025_(24-296470)_text.pdf\n\n52025039NOPV_Final Order_04142026_(24-296470)_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nApril 14, 2026\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: rob.johnson@wbienergy.com\nMr. Rob Johnson\nPresident\nWBI Energy Transmission, Inc.\n1250 W. Century Avenue\nBismarck, ND 58503\nRe: CPF No. 5-2025-039-NOPV\nDear Mr. Johnson:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation and specifies actions that need to be taken by WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. to\ncomply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been\ncompleted, as determined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be\nclosed. Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission and\nacknowledgement of receipt as provided under 49 CFR § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nLinda Daugherty\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMarc Dempewolf, VP of Operations, WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.,\nmarc.dempewolf@wbienergy.com\nBrian McDanold, DOT Compliance Primary, WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.,\nbrian.mcdanold@wbienergy.com\nKent Kahl, Compliance and Pipeline Integrity Manager, WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.,\nkent.kahl@wbienergy.com\n\n\n\nShilo Lensegrav, Engeering Supervisor, WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.,\nshilo.lensegrav@wbienergy.com\nCONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED\n2\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 )\nWBI Energy Transmission, Inc., ) CPF No. 5-2025-039-NOPV\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom June 17 through June 31 and July 8 through July 12, 2024, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117,\na representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an inspection of the control room management\nprocedures of WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (WBI or Respondent) in Bismarck, North Dakota.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated December 8, 2025, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding\nthat WBI violated 49 CFR § 192.631(a)(2) and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain\nmeasures to correct the alleged violation. The Notice also included an additional four warning\nitems pursuant to 49 CFR § 190.205 advising Respondent to correct certain probable violations\nor face possible future enforcement action.\nWBI responded to the Notice by letter dated January 7, 2026 (Response). WBI contested the\nallegation and offered additional information in response to the Notice. Respondent did not\nrequest a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 192.631(a)(2), which states:\n§ 192.631 Control room management\n(a) General.\n(1) . . . .\n\n\n\n2\n(2) The procedures required by this section must be integrated, as\nappropriate, with operating and emergency procedures required by\n§§ 192.605 and 192.615. An operator must develop the procedures no\nlater than August 1, 2011, and must implement the procedures\naccording to the following schedule. The procedures required by\nparagraphs (b), (c)(5), (d)(2) and (d)(3), (f) and (g) of this section must\nbe implemented no later than October 1, 2011. The procedures\nrequired by paragraphs (c)(1) through (4), (d)(1), (d)(4), and (e) must\nbe implemented no later than August 1, 2012. The training procedures\nrequired by paragraph (h) must be implemented no later than August\n1, 2012, except that any training required by another paragraph of\nthis section must be implemented no later than the deadline for that\nparagraph.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 192.631(a)(2) by failing to develop and\nimplement procedures required by section 192.631(e). Specifically, the Notice alleged that WBI\nfailed to develop and implement a procedure to monitor the content and volume of general\nactivity being directed to and required of each controller at least once each calendar year, but at\nintervals not to exceed 15 months, to assure controllers have sufficient time to analyze and react\nto incoming alarms as required by section 192.631 (e)(5).\nThe Notice stated that WBI provided three documents to PHMSA’s inspector relevant to the\nallegation in Item 1. First, WBI provided its Gas Control Manual, Section 2, Alarm\nManagement Plan (AMP), dated December 12, 2023 (Original AMP). The Notice alleged that\nthe Original AMP failed to include a procedure satisfying the requirements of section\n192.631(e)(5). Second, WBI provided a newer version of its AMP, dated November 25, 2024\n(Revised AMP). The Notice alleged that the Revised AMP also failed to include a procedure\nsatisfying the requirements of section 192.631(e)(5). Lastly, the Notice stated that WBI\nprovided records regarding a Controllers Time Work Study (Study). The Notice alleged that the\nStudy could not be comprehensively evaluated in the absence of a developed and implemented\nprocedure.\nIn its Response, WBI contested the allegation of violation for Item 1 for two reasons. First, WBI\nstated that Section 1.7 of its Original AMP contained a procedure for conducting a workload\nassessment as required by section 192.631(e)(5). Second, WBI stated that, based on\nrecommendations made by PHMSA during the inspection, WBI included in its Revised AMP an\nupdated workload assessment procedure, as well as a controller activity survey spreadsheet, and\nthat it provided both to PHMSA on November 27, 2024.\nIn a recommendation for final action submitted pursuant to section 190.209(b)(7), the Director\nagreed that Section 1.7 of the Revised AMP included a workload assessment procedure, but\nstated that the procedure provided failed to satisfy the requirements of section 192.631(e)(5) for\nfour reasons. First, the Director stated that the procedure failed to provide a comprehensive\nmethodology for identifying all tasks and work activities performed by controllers and lacked a\ndefined process for periodic review and update of the task inventory. Second, the Director stated\nthat the procedure used employee estimations of time spent on each task, rather than a more\n\n\n\n3\nreliable method such as system records or logs, and that the procedure failed to include tasks like\nalarm monitoring and response. Third, the Director stated that the procedure failed to establish a\nthreshold for implementing corrective actions in the event WBI determined that controllers do\nnot have sufficient time to analyze and respond to alarms. Lastly, the Director stated that the\nController Activity Survey provided with Section 1.7 included tasks not identified in the\nprocedure, suggesting that the procedure and supporting documentation are not aligned.\nThe adequacy of the procedures in the Original AMP controls in determining whether WBI\nviolated section 192.631(a)(2) as alleged in the Notice (though the procedures in the Revised\nAMP are relevant in determining whether WBI has satisfied the requirements of the Proposed\nCompliance Order as discussed in more detail below).\n1\nSection 1.7 of the Original AMP states that WBI will annually, but at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, review controller time spent in activities other than system monitoring, and monitor\ncontroller response time to incoming alarms. However, Section 1.7 does not describe how this\nmonitoring will be used to ensure that controllers have sufficient time to analyze and react to\nincoming alarms, only that the content and volume activities will be remedied “if necessary.”\nThe only specific corrective action described in Section 1.7 is that personnel interviews will be\nused to identify performance issues related to analyzing and reacting to incoming alarms.\nSection 192.631(e)(5) requires a proactive approach to addressing workload management based\non annual reviews, not a reactive response only when performance issues arise. Accordingly,\nafter considering all the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 192.631(a)(2) by\nfailing to develop and implement procedures required by section 192.631(e)(5).\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 for the violation of 49 CFR §\n192.631(a)(2). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of\ngas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under chapter 601. The proposed compliance order included with the\nNotice would require Respondent to (A) submit to the Director for review and approval an\nupdated procedure for compliance with section 192.631(e)(5); and (B) after approval by the\nDirector, conduct the assessment included in the procedure and submit documentation of such to\nthe Director.\nRespondent did not provide a specific response to the proposed compliance order. Yet the\nDirector requested in a recommendation for final action that the proposed compliance order be\n1 Post-inspection corrective action generally does not warrant withdrawing the violation or reducing to a warning.\nSee In the Matter of Oasis Midstream Partners, LP, 2020 WL 6870720, at *3 (Oasis’s actions in addressing these\ntraining deficiencies are welcomed by PHMSA, but such after-the-fact conduct does not provide a basis to absolve\nOasis of its acknowledged violations, nor does it warrant reducing the violation to something less). However, post-\ninspection corrective action generally does warrant consideration in determining whether a Respondent has satisfied\nthe proposed requirements in a compliance order. In the Matter of EQT Production Company, 2025 WL 4038036, at\n*4.\n\n\n\n4\nmodified to focus on specific inadequacies raised in the recommendation, while retaining the\nproposed compliance order for Respondent to conduct the assessment specified in its procedures\nwithin 90 days of the issuance of a Final Order.\nModification of the proposed compliance order is not necessary. WBI has, in fact, made certain\nmodifications to the relevant portions of its Revised AMP, and that updated procedure has now\nbeen submitted to the Director, in accordance with Paragraph A of the proposed compliance\norder. The various other concerns with the Revised AMP may be raised by the Director in the\ncourse of the review and approval process as already included in the proposed compliance order.\nTherefore, I decline to modify the proposed compliance order as it appeared with the Notice.\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 CFR § 190.217, Respondent is ordered\nto take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable\nto its operations:\n1. In regard to Item 1 of the Notice pertaining to failure to develop and implement a\nprocedure for monitoring the content and volume of general activity being\ndirected to and required of each controller that will assure controllers have\nsufficient time to analyze and react to incoming alarms, WBI Energy\nTransmission Inc., must develop and implement a procedure and submit for\nreview and approval by PHMSA within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order.\n2. In regard to Item 1 of the Notice pertaining to developing and implementing the\nprocedure referenced in paragraph 1, above, after PHMSA has reviewed and\napproved the submitted procedure, WBI Energy Transmission Inc., must conduct\nthe assessment by following the procedure within 90 days of receipt of the Final\nOrder, and submit documentation of this assessment to the Director for review.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an extension.\nPHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nexceeding $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (see 49 CFR § 190.223 for adjusted amounts), for\neach violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for\nappropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEMS\n\n\n\n5\nWith respect to Items 2, 3, 4 and 5, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192,\nbut identified them as warning items pursuant to section 190.205. The warnings were for:\n49 CFR § 192.631(c)(1) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its\nwritten procedure when changes were made to the SCADA system and displays to\nverify implementation of sections 1, 4, 8, 9, 11.1, and 11.3 of API RP 1165, as\nrequired;\n49 CFR § 192.631(e)(2) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to identify at\nleast once each calendar month points affecting safety that had been taken off\nscan in the SCADA host, had alarms inhibited, generated false alarms, or that had\nforced or manual values for periods of time exceeding that required for associated\nmaintenance or operating activities, as required;\n49 CFR § 192.631(h)(1) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to provide\ntraining to each controller to respond to abnormal operating conditions likely to\noccur simultaneously or in sequence, as required; and\n49 CFR § 192.631(h)(2) (Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to provide\ntraining for each controller with the use of a computerized simulator or non-\ncomputerized (tabletop) method for training controllers to recognize abnormal\noperating conditions, as required.\nIf OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be\nsubject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 CFR § 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, S.E., East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, D.C. 20590, with a copy sent to the Office\nof Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. The written petition must be received no later\nthan 20 days after receipt of the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must\ncontain a statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 CFR § 190.243. The\nterms of the order, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate\nAdministrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are\neffective upon service in accordance with 49 CFR § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nLinda Daugherty Date Issued\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":16702}