# CENTURION PIPELINE L.P. — Notice of Probable Violation

**Citation:** CPF 420145025  
**Type / status:** enforcement / historical  
**Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration  
**Effective:** Not stated  
**Published:** 2014-09-30

CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.404(a), 195.442(c)(5).

## Document text

Notice of Probable Violation involving CENTURION PIPELINE L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.404(a),  195.442(c)(5). The case was opened on 2014-09-30 and is reported as closed as of 2019-03-20. Proposed civil penalty: $165,600. Assessed civil penalty: $92,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

420145025_Closure Letter_03202019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_Closure%20Letter_03202019.pdf

420145025_Closure Letter_03202019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_Closure%20Letter_03202019_text.pdf

420145025_Consent Order and Agreement_01312019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_Consent%20Order%20and%20Agreement_01312019.pdf

420145025_Consent Order and Agreement_01312019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_Consent%20Order%20and%20Agreement_01312019_text.pdf

420145025_Final Order_03312017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_Final%20Order_03312017.pdf

420145025_Final Order_03312017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_Final%20Order_03312017_text.pdf

420145025_NOPV PCP PCO_09302014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09302014.pdf

420145025_NOPV PCP PCO_09302014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09302014_text.pdf

420145025_Operator Petition for Reconsideration with Exhibits_04272017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration%20with%20Exhibits_04272017.pdf

420145025_Operator Petition For Review (United Sates Court of Appeals For the Fifth Circuit)_11162017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_Operator%20Petition%20For%20Review%20(United%20Sates%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20For%20the%20Fifth%20Circuit)_11162017.pdf

420145025_PHC Decision on Petition Reconsideration_10242017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_PHC%20Decision%20on%20Petition%20Reconsideration_10242017.pdf

420145025_PHC Decision on Petition Reconsideration_10242017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_PHC%20Decision%20on%20Petition%20Reconsideration_10242017_text.pdf

420145025_Closure Letter_03202019_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
March 20, 2019
Jennifer Fontenot
Chief Operating Officer
Centurion Pipeline, LP
5 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, Texas 77046-7570
CPF 4-2014-5025
Dear Ms. Fontenot:
On January 31, 2019, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to Centurion Pipeline, LP a Consent Agreement and Order in the above-referenced case.
This Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of
the documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been
determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Mary L. McDaniel, P.E.
Director, Southwest
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

420145025_PHC Decision on Petition Reconsideration_10242017_text.pdf

October 24, 2017
Ms. Vicki Hollub
President and Chief Executive Officer
Occidental Petroleum Corporation
5 Greenway Plaza, Suite 110
Houston, TX 77046
Re: CPF No. 4-2014-5025
Dear Ms. Hollub:
Enclosed please find the Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Centurion
Pipeline, LP, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Corporation, in the above-referenced case.
For the reasons explained therein, the Decision affirms the violations in the Final Order and does
not modify the civil penalty or compliance terms. When the civil penalty has been paid and the
terms of the Compliance Order completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this
enforcement action will be closed. This Decision constitutes the final administrative action in
this proceeding. Service of this Decision is made pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Scott Janoe, Esq., Baker Botts, LLP, 910 Louisiana St., Houston, TX 77002
Mr. Mike Morgan, General Manager – Operations, Centurion Pipeline, LP, 5 Greenway
Plaza, Suite 110, Houston, TX 77046
CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
_________________________________________
In the Matter of )
Centurion Pipeline, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2014-5025
a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Corp., )
)
)
)
Petitioner. )
_________________________________________ )
DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Between January and June 2014, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an investigation of an accident that occurred January 30, 2014, on a pipeline operated
by Centurion Pipeline, LP (Centurion or Petitioner),1 near Snyder, Texas. Centurion operates
approximately 2,500 miles of pipeline transporting crude oil in Texas, Oklahoma, and New
Mexico.2
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Petitioner, by letter dated September 30, 2014, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the
Notice proposed finding that Centurion had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.404 and 195.442 and
proposed a civil penalty of $165,600 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed
ordering certain compliance measures to correct the alleged violations.
Centurion responded to the Notice by letter dated October 30, 2014 (Response), contested the
allegations, and requested a hearing. Centurion submitted additional materials on April 20,
2015. A hearing was held on April, 29, 2015, in Houston, Texas, with an attorney from the
Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. After the hearing, Petitioner provided post-hearing
statements for the record by letters dated June 26, 2015 (Closing), and August 14, 2015
(Supplemental Closing). Pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Director submitted a written
evaluation of Petitioner’s response material on July 9, 2015 (Recommendation).
1 Centurion is a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Corporation. See Centurion’s Petition for Reconsideration and
Brief in Support, (April 27, 2017) (on file with PHMSA).
2 This information is reported by Centurion for 2015 pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 195.49.



CPF No. 4-2014-5025
Page 2
On March 31, 2017, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, PHMSA issued a Final Order in this
proceeding, finding that Centurion committed violations of § 195.404(a) (Item 1) and § 195.442
(Item 2), as alleged in the Notice. The Final Order assessed a reduced civil penalty of $122,400,
and ordered corrective action with respect to Item 1, as set forth in the Compliance Order.
In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Centurion filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration
(Petition) of the Final Order on April 27, 2017, seeking reconsideration of the violations, civil
penalties, and Compliance Order. The filing of the petition automatically stayed payment of the
assessed civil penalty pursuant to § 190.243(c), but did not stay the corrective actions required to
be completed under the Compliance Order.
Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, an operator may petition the Associate Administrator for
reconsideration of a final order issued under § 190.213. Reconsideration does not constitute an
appeal or an opportunity to seek a de novo review of the record. It is instead an opportunity for
petitioners to request that errors in the final order be corrected or to present information that was
not previously available, provided the petitioner submits a valid reason explaining why such
information was not presented prior to issuance of the final order. PHMSA may grant or deny,
in whole or in part, a petition for reconsideration without further proceedings, but may request
additional information or comment if deemed appropriate. Under § 190.243(b), the petitioner
must submit reasoning why any additional facts or arguments were not presented prior to
issuance of the final order.
Centurion did not submit additional facts or arguments in the Petition. Rather, Centurion
continued to argue against PHMSA’s interpretations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.404(a) and
195.442(c)(5), repeating the same arguments and citing the same information contained in
Petitioner’s previous submissions and discussed at the hearing. Centurion characterized its
Petition as an attempt to clarify certain of its previous statements, which Petitioner asserted
PHMSA “may have misinterpreted and/or misapplied.” 3
Background
On November 12, 2013, in response to a one-call ticket submitted by an excavation contractor,
Centurion located and temporarily marked two of its pipelines within the proposed excavation
area. The two pipelines were Centurion’s parallel eight-inch and six-inch pipelines. Centurion’s
maps indicated that the eight-inch pipeline was located south of Centurion’s parallel six-inch
pipeline, but the actual location of the eight-inch pipeline at the site of the excavation was north
of the six-inch pipeline within the same right-of-way. Centurion used existing maps and a Radio
Detection RD8000 locator to locate the pipes and mark them. The six-inch pipeline was marked
after the eight-inch line. The one-call ticket was renewed five times before excavation
eventually started, each time prompting a site visit from Centurion, which verified the two
pipelines were still marked.
During excavation on January 30, 2014, two additional, unidentified pipes were discovered in the
excavation area. Where Centurion had marked what it expected to be its eight-inch and six-inch
pipelines, the excavator uncovered two six-inch pipes. Upon the discovery of a second six-inch
3 Petition, at 2.



CPF No. 4-2014-5025
Page 3
pipeline, Centurion learned that its eight-inch pipeline had not been marked and attempted to
locate and correctly mark the line. The excavator then partially exposed an eight-inch pipeline,
which Centurion presumed was its own pipeline. This pipeline, however, was not Centurion’s
line, but another eight-inch pipeline located directly above Centurion’s eight-inch line.
Centurion’s eight-inch line still could not be seen at the excavation site. Believing Centurion’s
eight-inch line had already been exposed, the excavation continued and Centurion’s eight-inch
pipeline was struck and damaged.
Analysis
Item 1 in the Final Order found that Centurion violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a), which states:
§195.404 Maps and records.
(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its pipeline
systems that include at least the following information;
(1) Location and identification of the following pipeline facilities;
(i) Breakout tanks;
(ii) Pump stations;
(iii) Scraper and sphere facilities;
(iv) Pipeline valves;
(v) Facilities to which §195.402(c)(9) applies;
(vi) Rights-of-way; and
(vii) Safety devices to which §195.428 applies.
(2) All crossings of public roads, railroads, rivers, buried utilities, and
foreign pipelines.
(3) The maximum operating pressure of each pipeline.
(4) The diameter, grade, type and nominal wall thickness of all pipe.
The Final Order determined that Petitioner violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a) by failing to maintain
current maps of its pipeline systems. Specifically, PHMSA found that Centurion did not
maintain a current map of its eight-inch Snyder-to-Post crude pipeline. On January 30, 2014,
Centurion’s eight-inch pipeline suffered third-party damage during excavation. Maps used by
Centurion to temporarily mark the eight-inch pipeline prior to excavation incorrectly showed the
pipeline was south of a parallel six-inch pipeline also operated by Centurion. The correct
location of the eight-inch pipeline was discovered to be north of the six-inch line.
In the Petition, Centurion argued the finding of violation in Item 1 should be reversed for several
reasons. The specific assertions made by Petitioner were that: (1) Centurion’s maps complied
with regulatory and industry standards; (2) Centurion’s marking of the other eight-inch pipeline
immediately above Centurion’s eight-inch pipeline rendered the maps accurate; and (3)
Centurion’s maps were not required to accurately indicate the position of Centurion’s eight-inch
pipeline relative to other pipelines in the area.
These arguments were previously raised in response to the Notice, at the hearing, and in
subsequent submissions and were rejected in the Final Order. Finding no reason to modify the
findings in the Final Order, PHMSA affirms the violation of § 195.404(a).



CPF No. 4-2014-5025
Page 4
Item 2 in the Final Order found that Centurion violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.442(c)(5), which states:
§ 195.442 Damage prevention program.
(a) . . . .
(c) The damage prevention program required by paragraph (a) of this
section must, at a minimum: …
(5) Provide for temporary marking of buried pipelines in the area of
excavation activity before, as far as practical, the activity begins.
The Final Order determined that Petitioner violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.442(c)(5) by failing to
provide correct temporary markings in the area of the excavation activity before the activity
began. Specifically, PHMSA found that Centurion failed to provide accurate temporary
markings of its eight-inch pipeline when it twice mis-marked the pipe’s location. Petitioner
attempted to locate and mark its eight-inch pipeline on November 12, 2013, and again on
January 30, 2014 (the day of the accident). Each time, Petitioner failed to accurately mark its
eight-inch pipeline, which eventually resulted in damage to the pipeline by a third-party
contractor using excavation equipment.
In the Petition, Centurion argued the finding of violation in Item 2 should be reversed for several
reasons. The specific assertions made by Petitioner were that: (1) Centurion properly marked its
pipelines in compliance with regulatory and industry standards; (2) but for the existence of the
other eight-inch pipeline immediately above Centurion’s eight-inch pipeline, no damage would
have resulted to Centurion’s line; (3) the finding of violation in Item 2 imposed a strict liability
standard on Petitioner; and (4) but for the excavator’s failure to comply with Texas law
concerning the area of excavation, no damage would have resulted to Centurion’s line.
Arguments (1), (2), and (4) were previously raised in response to the Notice, at the hearing, and
in subsequent submissions and were rejected in the Final Order. With regard to argument (3),
Petitioner did not articulate how the finding of violation in Item 2 of the Final Order imposed a
strict liability standard on Centurion. Presumably, Petitioner intended to assert that Item 2 was
premised entirely on the fact that excavation activity resulted in damage to Centurion’s eight-
inch line. This argument is without merit; the finding of violation documented in the Final Order
demonstrated that Centurion did not mark its own pipeline, but, rather marked an unidentified
pipeline operated by another company. Finding no reason to modify the findings in the Final
Order, PHMSA affirms the violation of § 195.442(c)(5).
Conclusion
Based on a review of the record and the information provided in the Petition, I hereby deny the
Petition and affirm the Final Order without modification, for the reasons set forth above.
Payment of the $122,400 civil penalty assessed in the Final Order is now due and must be made
within 20 days of service of this Decision. The payment instructions were set forth in detail in
the Final Order. Failure to pay the $122,400 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the



CPF No. 4-2014-5025
Page 5
current annual rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9, and 49 C.F.R.
§ 89.23. Pursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum
will be charged if payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay
the civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate
action in a United States District Court.
All other terms of the Final Order remain in effect, including terms of the Compliance Order,
which were required to be completed by Centurion and submitted to the Director, Southwest
Region no later than 90 days from receipt of the Final Order, or no later than July 5, 2017.
This Decision constitutes final agency action taken by PHMSA in the enforcement proceeding.
The terms and conditions of this Decision are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
October 24, 2017
_____________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

420145025_Consent Order and Agreement_01312019_text.pdf

CPF No. 4-2014-5025
Page 1
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, DC 20590
In the Matter of )
Centurion Pipeline, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2014-5025
a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Corp., )
Respondent. )
)
)
)
)
CONSENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER
The U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), and Centurion Pipeline, LP (Centurion or Respondent) have engaged in settlement
discussions regarding the resolution of the enforcement action listed above and the Petition for
Review filed by Centurion in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Case No. 17-60775.
Having concluded those discussions, PHMSA and Centurion (collectively, Parties) agree that a
settlement of this matter is in the best interests of the Parties and the public and will avoid further
administrative proceedings or litigation. The Parties further agree that the entry of this Consent
Agreement and Order (Agreement) is the most appropriate means of accomplishing that
objective.
I. Procedural History
On September 30, 2014, PHMSA issued to Centurion a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed
Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). The Notice alleged that Centurion had
committed violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.404 and 195.442 and proposed an administrative civil
penalty of $165,600 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering certain
compliance measures to correct the alleged violations.
Centurion responded to the Notice by letter dated October 30, 2014, contested the allegations, and
requested a hearing. A hearing was held on April 29, 2015, in Houston, Texas, with an attorney
from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. After the hearing, Centurion provided
post-hearing statements for the record on June 26, 2015, and August 14, 2015. Pursuant to
§ 190.209(b)(7), the Director of the Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA,
submitted a written evaluation of Centurion’s response material on July 9, 2015.



CPF No. 4-2014-5025
Page 2
On March 31, 2017, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, PHMSA issued a Final Order in this
proceeding, finding that Centurion committed violations of § 195.404(a) (Item 1) and § 195.442
(Item 2), as alleged in the Notice. The Final Order assessed a reduced civil penalty of $122,400,
and ordered corrective action with respect to Item 1, as set forth in the Compliance Order.
In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Centurion filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration of
the Final Order on April 27, 2017, seeking reconsideration of the violations, civil penalties, and
Compliance Order. The filing automatically stayed payment of the assessed civil penalty pursuant
to § 190.243(c), but did not stay the corrective actions required to be completed under the
Compliance Order. On October 24, 2017, PHMSA issued a Decision on Petition for
Reconsideration, denying the Petition and affirming the Final Order without modification.
On November 17, 2017, Centurion filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit challenging the Associate Administrator's findings of violation, in a case styled
Centurion Pipeline, L.P. v. TRAN, et al., Agency No. 4-2014-5025, Case No. 17-60775 (Petition).
Under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Parties have now resolved the
issues underlying the Notice, Final Order, and Petition, and Centurion will dismiss its Petition as
provided in Paragraph 13 of this Agreement.
II. General Provisions.
1. Respondent acknowledges that its pipeline system is subject to the jurisdiction of
the federal Pipeline Safety Laws, 49 U.S.C. §§ 60101, et seq., and the regulations and
administrative orders issued thereunder. As used in this Agreement, the term “pipeline system”
shall be defined as in 49 C.F.R. Part 195. Respondent acknowledges that it received proper notice
of PHMSA’s action in this proceeding and that the Notice states claims upon which relief may be
granted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 60101, et seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder.
2. Respondent consents to the issuance of this Agreement and hereby waives any
further procedural requirements with respect to its issuance. Respondent waives all rights to
contest the adequacy of notice or the validity of this Agreement, including all rights to
administrative or judicial hearings, reviews, or appeals.
3. This Agreement constitutes the final, complete, and exclusive agreement and
understanding between the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in this Agreement, and
the Parties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements, or understandings relating
to the settlement other than those expressly contained in this Agreement.
4. Nothing in this Agreement affects or relieves Respondent of its responsibility to
comply with all applicable requirements of the federal Pipeline Safety Laws, 49 U.S.C. §§ 60101,
et seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. Nothing in this Agreement alters
PHMSA’s right of access, entry, inspection, and information-gathering or its authority to bring
any enforcement action against Respondent pursuant to the federal Pipeline Safety Laws, the
regulations and orders issued thereunder.



CPF No. 4-2014-5025
Page 3
5. This Agreement does not waive or modify any federal, state, or local laws or
regulations that are applicable to Respondent or its pipeline system. This Agreement is not a
permit, or a modification of any permit, under any federal, state, or local laws or regulations.
Respondent remains responsible for achieving and maintaining compliance with all applicable
federal, state, and local laws, regulations and permits.
6. This Agreement does not create rights in, or grant any cause of action to, any third
party not a party to this Agreement.
7. This Agreement shall apply to and be binding on PHMSA and Centurion, its
officers, directors, employees, successors and assigns, including, but not limited to, any
subsequent purchaser of the at issue pipelines.
III. Amendments to Final Order and Related Provisions
8. By entry of this Agreement, PHMSA amends the provisions in the Final Order as
they relate to Item 1, the alleged violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a). PHMSA amends Item 1 to a
Warning Item pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. PHMSA’s determination that Centurion violated
49 C.F.R. § 195.442(c)(5) (Item 2) is not amended in any way, and remains in place. PHMSA
may choose to consider Item 1 and Item 2 to be prior findings of violation in future PHMSA
enforcement actions brought against Centurion.
9. By entry of this Agreement, PHMSA amends the Final Order to assess a total civil
penalty of Ninety-Two Thousand Dollars ($92,000.00).
10. Centurion will pay the civil penalty amount in Paragraph 10 within 30 calendar
days of the Effective Date of this Agreement. Payment shall be made by wire transfer through the
Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury, as
outlined in the Final Order.
11. Centurion stipulates that the facts as alleged in the Notice are true and correct, but
denies that it violated the Federal pipeline safety regulations.
12. the Compliance Order.
PHMSA finds that Centurion has completed all compliance measures contained in
IV. Dismissal of Petition for Review
13. Within three (3) business days after the Effective Date of this Agreement,
Centurion shall file with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit a motion to dismiss the
Petition pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, specifying that the
Parties will bear their own costs and fees.



CPF No. 4-2014-5025
Page 4
V. Effective Date
14. The “Effective Date,” as used herein, is the date on which this Agreement is
signed by both Respondent and PHMSA.
The Parties hereby agree to all conditions and terms of this Agreement:
For PHMSA: For Centurion Pipeline, LP:
_______________________________ _________________________________
Alan K. Mayberry _________
Associate Administrator for
Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Centurion Pipeline, LP

420145025_NOPV PCP PCO_09302014_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
September 30, 2014
Bill Boyer
President
Centurion Pipeline, L.P.
5 Greenway Plaza, Suite 110
Houston, TX 77046
CPF 4-2014-5025
Dear Mr. Boyer:
On January 30, 2014, Centurion Pipeline Company, L.P. (Centurion) experienced an excavated related
accident on its Snyder-to-Post 8-inch line near Snyder, TX. As a result of this accident, a representative
of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code conducted an accident investigation and
performed an inspection of your related Damage Prevention practices.
As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety
Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violation(s)
are:
1. §195.404 Maps and Records.
(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its pipeline systems that
include at least the following information;
(1) Location and identification of the following pipeline facilities;
(i) Breakout tanks;
(ii) Pump stations;



(iii) Scraper and sphere facilities;
(iv) Pipeline valves;
(v) Facilities to which §195.402(c)(9) applies;
(vi) Rights-of-way; and
(vii) Safety devices to which §195.428 applies.
(2) All crossings of public roads, railroads, rivers, buried utilities, and foreign
pipelines.
(3) The maximum operating pressure of each pipeline.
(4) The diameter, grade, type and nominal wall thickness of all pipe.
Centurion did not maintain a current map of the 8-inch Snyder-to-Post crude pipeline system at
milepost 3.63, as required by §195.404. On January 30, 2014, Centurion’s incorrectly marked
pipeline, ¼ miles Northwest of the City of Snyder, (Scurry County) Texas, was damaged while
excavation was being performed in the area by an excavator. Maps used to temporarily mark the
8-inch pipeline prior to excavation, indicated the pipeline was south of a parallel 6-inch pipeline,
also operated by Centurion. The accurate location of the 8-inch pipeline at milepost 3.63 was
discovered to be north of the 6-inch within the same right-of-way.
ADB-02-03 issued by DOT advised owners and operators to review information and mapping
systems for accurate and useable information. The existing mapping data for the 8-inch pipeline
was not confirmed to be accurate by Centurion.
2. §195.442 Damage Prevention Program.
(c) The damage prevention program required by paragraph (a) of this section must, at a
minimum:
(5) Provide for temporary marking of buried pipelines in the area of excavation
activity before, as far as practical, the activity begins.
Centurion failed to provide accurate temporary markings of the Snyder-to-Post 8-inch pipeline at
MP 3.63 in Scurry County, Texas. Prior to the start of excavation, the Snyder-to-Post line was
temporarily marked by Centurion personnel in response to a one-call request received in
November 2013. On January 30, 2014, the pipeline was punctured with excavation equipment by a
third-party contractor, causing an estimated 475 barrels to be released to the environment.
During the investigation, it was discovered the pipeline was twice mismarked by personnel. The
first instance occurred during the initial response to the one-call request on November 12, 2013.
The initial marking was performed with the assistance of electronic maps and locating equipment
(Radio Detection RD8000 locator) available to Centurion personnel. The second occurrence took
place during excavation activities on January 30, 2014 after field personnel recognized the
erroneous markings, and attempted to accurately mark the lines by exposing the pipelines. An
unaccounted for 8-inch pipeline discovered during excavation was incorrectly marked as
belonging to Centurion. As the third party contractor was excavating this line, the unmarked
Snyder-to-Post 8-inch was damaged.
2



Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per
violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of violations.
For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per
violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations.
The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the
above probable violation(s) and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of
$165,600 as follows:
Item number PENALTY
1 $ 21,600
2 $144,000
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to item 1 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Centurion Pipeline, L.P. Please refer to
the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.
Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in
Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All material you
submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you believe that any
portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with
the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you
believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted
information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30
days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this
Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this
Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2014-5025 and for each document you
submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
R. M. Seeley
Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
3



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) proposes to issue to Centurion Pipeline, L.P. (Centurion) a Compliance Order incorporating the
following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Centurion with the pipeline safety
regulations:
1. 2. 3. In regard to Item 1 of the Notice pertaining to maps of the Snyder-to-Post pipeline,
Centurion must revise/update information and mapping systems for the Snyder-to-Post 8-
inch pipeline from milepost 0 through 5 to accurately reflect the location and identification
of the pipeline facilities.
Provide PHMSA with documentation that verifies completion of Item 1 within 90 days
following the receipt of the Final Order.
It is requested (not mandated) that Centurion maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to
R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost
associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total
cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
4

420145025_Final Order_03312017_text.pdf

March 31, 2017
Mr. Mike Morgan
General Manager - Operations
Centurion Pipeline L.P.
5 Greenway Plaza, Suite 110
Houston, TX 77046
Re: CPF No. 4-2014-5025
Dear Mr. Morgan:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $122,400, and specifies corrective action that must
be completed. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil
penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the
Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order is
made pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA, OPS
Mr. Ahren Tryon, Tryon Law Firm
4148 Hockaday Drive, Dallas, Texas 75229
CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
Centurion Pipeline, LP, )
a subsidiary of Occidental )
Petroleum Corp., ) CPF No. 4-2014-5025
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
Between January and June 2014, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an investigation of an accident that occurred January 30, 2014, on a pipeline operated
by Centurion Pipeline, LP (Centurion or Respondent), in Houston, Texas. Centurion operates
approximately 2,500 miles of pipeline transporting crude oil in Texas, Oklahoma and New
Mexico.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director) issued to
Respondent, by letter dated September 30, 2014, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the
Notice proposed finding that Centurion had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.404 and 195.442 and
proposed a civil penalty of $165,600 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed
ordering certain compliance measures to correct the alleged violations.
Centurion responded to the Notice by letter dated October 30, 2014 (Response), contested the
allegations, and requested a hearing. Centurion submitted additional materials on April 20,
2015. A hearing was held on April, 29, 2015, in Houston, Texas, with an attorney from the
Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. After the hearing, Respondent provided post-
hearing statements for the record by letters dated June 26, 2015 (Closing) and August 14, 2015
(Supplemental Closing). Pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Director submitted a written
evaluation of Respondent’s response material on July 9, 2015 (Recommendation).
1 This information is reported by Centurion for 2015 pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 195.49.



FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a), which states in
relevant part:
§195.404 Maps and records.
(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its pipeline
systems that include at least the following information;
(1) Location and identification of the following pipeline facilities;
(i) Breakout tanks;
(ii) Pump stations;
(iii) Scraper and sphere facilities;
(iv) Pipeline valves;
(v) Facilities to which §195.402(c)(9) applies;
(vi) Rights-of-way; and
(vii) Safety devices to which §195.428 applies.
(2) All crossings of public roads, railroads, rivers, buried utilities, and
foreign pipelines.
(3) The maximum operating pressure of each pipeline.
(4) The diameter, grade, type and nominal wall thickness of all pipe.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a) by failing to maintain
current maps of its pipeline systems. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Centurion did not
maintain a current map of the eight-inch Snyder-to-Post crude pipeline. On January 30, 2014,
Centurion’s pipeline suffered third-party damage during excavation. Maps used by Centurion to
temporarily mark the eight-inch pipeline prior to excavation incorrectly showed the pipeline was
south of a parallel six-inch pipeline also operated by Centurion. The correct location of the
eight-inch pipeline was discovered to be north of the six-inch line.
Respondent argued that the alleged violation should be withdrawn because OPS did not apply a
proper standard for determining compliance with § 195.404. In particular, Respondent noted that
the regulation requires maps to be “current,” but the Notice alleged Respondent’s maps were not
“accurate.” Respondent argued that its maps were indeed current. For example, when
Respondent acquired the pipelines in 2007, the Company used in-line inspection data to create
the maps and also purchased geospatial data. The pipelines then underwent “mapping data
accuracy verification via an internal inspection tool equipped with an inertial mapping unit.”2
Centurion also planned to use information from the excavation on January 30, 2014, to update its
system maps.
Respondent also contended that its maps were far more accurate than the standard for accuracy
that applies to the submission of location information in the National Pipeline Mapping
2 Closing, at 10.



System (NPMS). The NPMS, Respondent argued, requires accuracy within 500 feet, while
Respondent’s maps were only off by eight feet. Respondent argued that it should not be
penalized for using “best practices” to maintain its system maps.3 Respondent also asserted that
it was under no obligation to map the Company’s six-inch line that was near the damaged eight-
inch line because the six-inch line was not subject to the pipeline safety regulations in Part 195.
At the Hearing, the Director explained that Respondent’s map depicted the eight-inch pipeline in
the wrong place. Specifically, the map incorrectly depicted the eight-inch pipeline in relation to
the six-inch unregulated pipeline. This is what the Notice meant by alleging the maps were not
“accurate.” The Director also noted that an Advisory Bulletin previously issued by PHMSA
advises operators that documents, including maps, used in the performance of operations
required under Part 195 should contain clear and useable information.
Applicable Safety Standards
Section 195.404(a) requires a pipeline operator to maintain “current maps and records” of its
pipeline system. Maps include those depicting the location of an operator’s pipeline facility,
including the location of pipe, valves, safety devices, crossings of roads, utilities, and foreign
pipelines, and other information such as maximum operating pressure. As PHMSA has
previously stated, “Inherent in an operator’s obligation under § 195.404(a) to maintain ‘current
maps and records’ is the need for such records to be complete and accurate.”4 Under this
regulation, an operator is required to maintain not just current maps, but accurate maps.
In 2002, PHMSA issued a safety bulletin titled “Pipeline Safety: Gas and Hazardous Liquid
Pipeline Mapping.”5 The Advisory Bulletin advises each pipeline operator to review information
and mapping systems “to ensure that the operator has clear, accurate, and useable information on
the location and characteristics of all pipes, valves, regulators, and other pipeline elements for
use in emergency response, pipe location and marking, and pre-construction planning.”6
Findings
On January 30, 2014, Respondent’s eight-inch pipeline was damaged during excavation by a
third party. Respondent had used its own maps to temporarily mark the eight-inch pipeline prior
to the excavation. The maps indicated the pipeline was located south of the Company’s parallel
six-inch pipeline, but the actual location of the eight-inch pipeline at the site of the excavation
3 Supplemental Closing, at 12.
4 Plantation Pipe Line Co., CPF No. 1-2005-5017, at 5, 2009 WL 1211364 (Mar. 27, 2009).
5 Pipeline Safety: Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Mapping, 67 Fed. Reg. 40,768 (June 13, 2002)
(Advisory Bulletin).
6 Id. Because the plain language of the regulation and subsequent guidance issued by PHMSA notified
Respondent of the requirement to maintain current maps in accordance with § 195.404, Respondent’s
contention that it did not have notice of the requirement is rejected.



was north of the six-inch pipeline within the same right-of-way. This evidence demonstrates
Respondent’s maps were not current or accurate.
While Respondent argued its maps were only off by eight feet, § 195.404(a) does not establish a
prescriptive standard of accuracy measured in feet. The regulation establishes a performance
standard. PHMSA has explained the performance standard means, at a minimum, that the
information must be accurate enough to be useable for its intended purpose. On the date of the
excavation, Respondent’s maps were used to mark a pipeline for the purpose of avoiding
excavation damage, but the maps were inaccurate, which led to inaccurate markings and
eventually damage to the pipeline.
Respondent’s assertion that an accuracy standard of 500 feet should apply under § 195.404 is
rejected. The 500-foot standard cited by Respondent is for the submission of data to the NPMS
and is not a regulatory standard under § 195.404. There is no support in Part 195 for
Respondent’s assertion that the NPMS data submission standard applies to the maps and records
required to be maintained under § 195.404.
Respondent also asserted that the Company was not required to accurately reflect the relative
location of the unregulated six-inch pipeline. This assertion is also rejected. Section 195.404
required Respondent to have maps and records that showed not only proximity of the regulated
eight-inch pipeline to other pipelines, but also nearby utilities and foreign pipelines. Since the
maps must include other pipelines and non-pipeline utilities, the maps were required to have an
accurate depiction of Respondent’s nearby six-inch pipeline.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.404(a) by failing to maintain a map that depicted the location of its eight-inch pipeline
relative to its six-inch line.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.442, which states in
relevant part:
§ 195.442 Damage prevention program.
(a) . . . .
(c) The damage prevention program required by paragraph (a) of this
section must, at a minimum:
(5) Provide for temporary marking of buried pipelines in the area of
excavation activity before, as far as practical, the activity begins.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.442 by failing to provide correct
temporary markings in the area of the excavation activity before the activity began. Specifically,
the Notice alleged that Centurion failed to provide accurate temporary markings of the eight-inch
pipeline when it twice mismarked the pipe’s location. Respondent attempted to locate and mark
the eight-inch pipeline on November 12, 2013, and again on January 30, 2014 (the day of the
accident). Each time, Respondent failed to accurately mark the eight-inch pipeline, which
eventually resulted in damage to the pipeline by a third-party contractor using excavation
equipment.



On November 12, 2013, in response to a one-call ticket submitted by the excavation contractor,
Respondent located and temporarily marked two of its pipelines within the proposed excavation
area. The two pipelines were the eight-inch pipeline and the six-inch pipeline. Respondent used
existing maps and a Radio Detection RD8000 locator to locate the pipes and mark them. The
six-inch pipeline was marked after the eight-inch line. The one-call ticket was renewed five
times before excavation eventually started, each time prompting a site visit from Centurion,
which verified the two pipelines were still marked.7
During excavation on January 30, 2014, two additional, unidentified pipes were discovered in the
excavation area. Where Respondent had marked what it expected to be its eight-inch and six-
inch pipelines, the excavator uncovered two six-inch pipes. Upon the discovery of a second six-
inch pipeline, Respondent believed its own eight-inch pipeline had been mismarked and
attempted to locate and correctly mark the line.8 The excavator then partially exposed an eight-
inch pipeline, which Centurion presumed was its own pipeline. This pipeline, however, was not
Respondent’s line, but another eight-inch pipeline located directly above Respondent’s line.
Centurion’s line still could not be seen at the excavation site. Believing Respondent’s eight-inch
line had already been exposed, the excavation continued and Respondent’s pipeline was struck
and damaged.
At the hearing and in its written submission, Respondent admitted that it had mismarked its
eight-inch pipeline.9 Respondent disputed, however, that the line was mismarked again during
the excavation. The Company argued that because the pipeline was directly beneath the
unknown eight-inch pipe that had been exposed, its markings should be considered accurate,
regardless of whether it thought the unknown pipe was its own pipeline.10
Respondent contended further that its temporary markings were within the “area of excavation
activity” as required by § 195.442(c)(5) because the marks were directly over the point of
impact, and the paint line was in the area the excavator was working. Respondent also argued
the Texas Administrative Code defines a “tolerance zone” for excavations that would be roughly
44 inches in this instance.11 In conclusion, Respondent argued that Centurion’s marking was
exactly over the location where the pipeline was struck and damaged.12
7 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Sep. 30, 2014) (on file with PHMSA), at 11-12.
8 Violation Report, Ex. C, at 6 (Internal Review Meeting: Third Party Strike on Centurion’s Snyder to
Post 8in Crude Oil Pipeline) (Mar. 5, 2014).
9 Tr., at 169-70; Violation Report, Ex. C, at 2-3.
10 Tr., at 172, 180-81; Closing, at fn 12; Supplemental Closing, at 10.
11 Tr., at 179; Closing, at 21 (citing Texas Administrative Code Title 16, Section 18.10).
12 Supplemental Closing, at 7; Closing, at 20-12.



Applicable Safety Standards
Section 195.442(c)(5) requires a pipeline operator to have a written program to prevent damage
to its buried pipelines from excavation activities. The damage prevention program must include,
at a minimum, a means to receive notification of planned excavation activities, to notify the
prospective excavator of the presence of its pipelines in the area of planned excavation, and to
“provide for temporary marking of buried pipelines in the area of excavation activity” before the
activity begins.
Findings
On November 12, 2013, Centurion responded to a notification of planned excavation by
attempting to provide temporary marking of its buried eight-inch pipeline in the area of the
planned excavation. After the excavation activity began, it was determined that the marking was
not accurate because the marking revealed a six-inch pipeline. After the six-inch pipeline was
exposed, Respondent attempted to identify and temporarily mark the eight-inch pipeline again,
but that marking too was inaccurate, as the marking turned out to be another operator’s eight-
inch line, which was previously unidentified. As the excavation continued, Respondent’s eight-
inch pipeline was damaged because its true position was never identified during temporary
marking, as required by § 195.442(c)(5).
While Respondent argued that it had complied with the regulation because its pipeline was
directly beneath the unidentified eight-inch line that it had marked and all the markings were in
the “area of excavation,” I reject this argument. Respondent did not mark its own pipeline, but
rather marked an unidentified pipeline operated by another company. Thereafter, excavation
continued until Centurion’s pipeline was damaged. Respondent’s markings therefore did not
comply with the regulatory requirement.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.442 by failing to provide correct temporary markings on its buried pipeline in the area of
excavation activity before the activity began.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.
In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I
must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,
including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history
of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue



doing business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline
safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation
without any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may
require. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $165,600 for the violations cited above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $21,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.404, for failing to maintain current maps of its pipeline systems.
With respect to the nature and circumstances of the violation, OPS alleged this was a records
violation that Respondent discovered and self-reported, which served to mitigate the penalty as
reflected in the proposed amount.13 With respect to gravity, OPS alleged the violation
significantly compromised pipeline safety. OPS did not propose a credit under either the
culpability or good faith factors because Respondent failed to take appropriate action to comply
with the regulation.
Respondent argued the penalty should be reduced because the proposed amount did not take into
consideration the accuracy of Respondent’s maps, which were only off by eight feet, and that the
six-inch pipeline was unregulated. I have already rejected these assertions above under the
Finding of Violation section. Therefore, I find they are not a basis to reduce the penalty.
Respondent also argued the penalty should be reduced because Centurion had taken measures to
verify the accuracy of its maps prior to the excavation damage, and in fact, the third-party
operator of other pipelines in the area of excavation bears responsibility for the damage. These
arguments are also rejected as I find Respondent is responsible for the accuracy of its own
pipeline maps, regardless of when or from whom it acquired the pipelines. Respondent had
owned the pipelines for approximately seven years prior to the incident, and its efforts to verify
the accuracy were insufficient to warrant a penalty reduction in this case.
Finally, contrary to Respondent’s assertion, the fact that it self-reported the violation does not
require further reduction of the penalty under “good faith.” When considering an operator’s
good faith in attempting to comply, PHMSA looks at the attempt to comply with prior to the
occurrence of the violation.14 Respondent’s self-reporting of the violation has no bearing on
whether or not the Company had made a good-faith effort to have current maps when the
violation occurred. As indicated above, however, the self-report did factor into the proposed
penalty under the circumstances factor.
Having reviewed the civil penalty assessment factors, I find the evidence supports assessment of
the proposed penalty. Accordingly, Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of $21,600 for the
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.404.
13 Violation Report, at 7.
14 Enterprise Products Operating, LLC, CPF 4-2013-5011, 2016 WL 1104436, at 9 (Feb. 4, 2016).



Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $144,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49
C.F.R. § 195.442(c)(5), for failing to provide correct temporary markings on a buried pipeline in
the area of excavation activity before the activity began.
With respect to the nature and circumstances of the violation, OPS alleged the violation
concerned a failure to perform a required activity and it was discovered by PHMSA. With
respect to gravity, OPS alleged the violation was a causal factor in the accident, which is the
most severe gravity rating. OPS offered mitigating information reflected in the proposed penalty
to account for good faith by Respondent and “significant steps” towards compliance, even
though compliance was not achieved.15
Respondent argued the penalty should be reduced because the Violation Report inaccurately
stated the violation lasted 79 days, which did not account for the fact that the excavation ticket
was reissued several times. At the hearing, OPS explained that duration information was
calculated from the date of the first location ticket issuance, but that the civil penalty was not
adjusted beyond a single-day violation. Since the duration of the violation did not impact the
proposed penalty amount, Respondent’s argument is not grounds to reduce the penalty.
Respondent also stated that the penalty should be reduced because Respondent’s conduct was not
“a causal factor in an accident/incident.”16 Respondent claimed that it had “marked directly
over the location of the eight-inch Snyder-to-Post pipeline in the area of excavation activity
which was directly over the point of the strike.” Respondent argued that it “would defy logic for
PHMSA to assert that the pipeline was struck because Centurion failed to place a mark where the
excavation activity was taking place.”17
I disagree. While other factors contributed to the accident, Respondent’s failure to correctly
mark its Snyder-to-Post-eight-inch pipe was a causal factor in the accident. In particular,
Respondent mistakenly marked an unidentified pipeline, not its own pipeline. After the
unidentified pipeline was unearthed, the excavator continued digging while Respondent believed
its pipeline had already been safely exposed. Respondent’s pipeline had not actually been
marked and was struck by the excavator as work continued. Therefore, I do not find
Respondent’s assertion warrants reducing the penalty.
Finally, Centurion argued that the penalty should be reduced because the third-party operator of
the other pipelines in the area of excavation bears responsibility for the damage. While an
operator will generally be considered culpable for any failure to comply with a regulation absent
some justification for the failure,18 in this case I find there were certain events outside of
Respondent’s control that contributed to the violation. Specifically, a third-party operator of
pipelines in the area of the excavation failed to comply with applicable safety requirements by
responding to the one-call ticket location requests and by marking its pipelines. The failure of
15 Violation Report, at 17.
16 Closing, at 27; Supplemental Closing, at 13; Violation Report, at 16.
17 Closing, at 27.
18 Enterprise Products Operating, LLC, CPF 4-2013-5011, 2016 WL 1104436, at 9 (Feb. 4, 2016).



that operator to mark its own pipelines in the area of excavation increased the likelihood of
confusion between Respondent’s pipelines and the unknown and unidentified third-party
pipelines during the excavation. Respondent ultimately bears responsibility for accurately
marking its own lines, but I find the civil penalty should be reduced to take into consideration
these facts concerning culpability.
Accordingly, having reviewed the civil penalty assessment factors, I find the evidence supports
assessing a reduced civil penalty of $100,800 for the violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.442.
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $122,400.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169. The
Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
Failure to pay the $122,400 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual
rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to the violations cited above in Item 1.
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids
by pipeline or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable
safety standards established under chapter 601.
Centurion asserted that it complied with the terms of the proposed compliance order because all
relevant information gained from its review of the incident has been integrated into the maps and
records of the eight-inch pipeline. At the hearing, Respondent presented an updated map that
reflected the accurate position of the pipelines relative to each other in the area of the excavation
damage. I find these actions did not adequately address the terms of the proposed compliance
order, which proposed actions to ensure the map is accurate from milepost 0 through 5.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217,
Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety
regulations applicable to its operations:



1. With respect to the violation of § 195.404(a) (Item 1), Centurion must revise and
update information and mapping systems for the Snyder-to-Post eight-inch pipeline
from milepost 0 through 5 to accurately reflect the location and identification of the
pipeline facilities. Centurion must submit documentation that verifies completion of
this compliance order within 90 days following receipt of the Final Order.
Documentation must be submitted to the Director, Southwest Region.
2. It is requested that Centurion maintain documentation of the safety improvement
costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total cost to the
Director. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost
associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and
(2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline
infrastructure.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent, demonstrating good cause for an extension.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not
to exceed the amounts set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 190.223 (currently $205,638 for each violation for
each day the violation continues) or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a
district court of the United States.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a petition for reconsideration of this Final
Order to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, D.C. 20590, no later than 20 days after receipt of the
Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and
meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays
the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective
action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
March 31, 2017
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

## Provenance

- Official: Yes
- Source: <https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420145025>
- Source ID: `phmsa-enforcement`
- SHA-256: `c9d73776782b61b30c89a94fb6bce29e32d56c2cac88f3baf38121c6acde571a`
- Retrieved: 2026-08-20T04:44:44.458Z
- Exported: 2026-08-22T21:58:59.990Z
- Document slug: `phmsa-enforcement-420145025`

### Source metadata

```json
{
  "cpf": "420145025",
  "operator": "CENTURION PIPELINE L.P.",
  "region": "Southwest",
  "pipelineType": "INTERSTATE LIQUID ONSHORE",
  "caseStatus": "CLOSED",
  "citedSections": [
    "195.404(a)",
    "195.442(c)(5)"
  ],
  "dataAsOf": "08/04/2026 12PM",
  "caseDataAsOf": "2026-08-04",
  "attachmentCount": 12,
  "attachments": [
    {
      "name": "420145025_Closure Letter_03202019.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_Closure%20Letter_03202019.pdf",
      "bytes": 23159,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420145025_Closure Letter_03202019_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_Closure%20Letter_03202019_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 77548,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420145025_Consent Order and Agreement_01312019.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_Consent%20Order%20and%20Agreement_01312019.pdf",
      "bytes": 1145458,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420145025_Consent Order and Agreement_01312019_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_Consent%20Order%20and%20Agreement_01312019_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 148679,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420145025_Final Order_03312017.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_Final%20Order_03312017.pdf",
      "bytes": 3399042,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420145025_Final Order_03312017_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_Final%20Order_03312017_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 149218,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420145025_NOPV PCP PCO_09302014.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09302014.pdf",
      "bytes": 138954,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420145025_NOPV PCP PCO_09302014_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09302014_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 19451,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420145025_Operator Petition for Reconsideration with Exhibits_04272017.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration%20with%20Exhibits_04272017.pdf",
      "bytes": 102246,
      "category": "party_submission"
    },
    {
      "name": "420145025_Operator Petition For Review (United Sates Court of Appeals For the Fifth Circuit)_11162017.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_Operator%20Petition%20For%20Review%20(United%20Sates%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20For%20the%20Fifth%20Circuit)_11162017.pdf",
      "bytes": 72148,
      "category": "party_submission"
    },
    {
      "name": "420145025_PHC Decision on Petition Reconsideration_10242017.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_PHC%20Decision%20on%20Petition%20Reconsideration_10242017.pdf",
      "bytes": 798830,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "420145025_PHC Decision on Petition Reconsideration_10242017_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145025/420145025_PHC%20Decision%20on%20Petition%20Reconsideration_10242017_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 109062,
      "category": "agency_document"
    }
  ],
  "extractedAgencyDocumentCount": 5,
  "attachmentPolicy": "Official attachment links are retained. Agency-issued documents may also include a verified local PDF and page-level text representation.",
  "jurisdiction": "US",
  "operatorName": "CENTURION PIPELINE L.P."
}
```