# SUMMIT MIDSTREAM PARTNERS, LLC — Warning Letter

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 32022005WL
- **title:** SUMMIT MIDSTREAM PARTNERS, LLC — Warning Letter
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2022-01-03
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED warning letter citing 195.404(c)(3), 195.452(l)(1)(ii).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32022005wl.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32022005wl.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32022005wl
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/32022005WL
**body:**

Warning Letter involving SUMMIT MIDSTREAM PARTNERS, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.404(c)(3),  195.452(l)(1)(ii). The case was opened on 2022-01-03 and is reported as closed as of 2022-01-03. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

32022005WL_Warning Letter_01032022_(21-199716).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022005WL/32022005WL_Warning%20Letter_01032022_(21-199716).pdf

32022005WL_Warning Letter_01032022_(21-199716)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022005WL/32022005WL_Warning%20Letter_01032022_(21-199716)_text.pdf

32022005WL_Warning Letter_01032022_(21-199716)_text.pdf

WARNING LETTER
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: heath.deneke@summitmidstream.com and
MStratmann@summitmidstream.com
January 3, 2022
Mr. Heath Deneke
President/CEO
Summit Midstream Partners, LLC (SMP)
910 Louisiana Street, Suite 4200
Houston, TX 77002
CPF 3-2022-005-WL
Dear Mr. Deneke:
From March 23, April 26 to 29, May 10 to 12 and June 8 to 10, 2021, a representative of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of
49 United States Code (U.S.C.) inspected your procedures, records and field assets virtually and
in Epping, North Dakota.
As a result of the inspection, it is alleged that Summit Midstream Partners (SMP) have
committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR). The items inspected and the probable violations are:



1. §195.404 Maps and records.
(a)…
(c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the periods specified;
(3) A record of each inspection and test required by this subpart shall be maintained
for at least 2 years or until the next inspection or test is performed, whichever is
longer.
§195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator shall, at intervals
not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, or in the case of pipelines
used to carry highly volatile liquids, at intervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least
twice each calendar year, inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve,
pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it is
functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from the
standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used.
(b) In the case of relief valves on pressure breakout tanks containing highly volatile
liquids, each operator shall test each valve at intervals not exceeding 5 years.
(c) Aboveground breakout tanks that are constructed or significantly altered according to
API Std 2510 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) after October 2, 2000, must have
an overfill protection system installed according to API Std 2510, section 7.1.2. Other
aboveground breakout tanks with 600 gallons (2271 liters) or more of storage capacity
that are constructed or significantly altered after October 2, 2000, must have an overfill
protection system installed according to API RP 2350 (incorporated by reference, see §
195.3). However, an operator need not comply with any part of API RP 2350 for a
particular breakout tank if the operator describes in the manual required by § 195.402
why compliance with that part is not necessary for safety of the tank.
(d) After October 2, 2000, the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section for
inspection and testing of pressure control equipment apply to the inspection and testing of
overfill protection systems.
Based on a July 9, 2021 data response, SMP failed to produce records showing that overfill
protection devices for all five tanks were tested in 2019. Furthermore, the 2020 data was not
provided for the two surge tanks (Little Muddy and Stampede).
2



2. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(a)…
(l) What records must an operator keep to demonstrate compliance?
(1) An operator must maintain, for the useful life of the pipeline, records that
demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this subpart. At a minimum, an
operator must maintain the following records for review during an inspection:
(ii) Documents to support the decisions and analyses, including any modifications,
justifications, deviations and determinations made, variances, and actions taken, to
implement and evaluate each element of the integrity management program listed in
paragraph (f) of this section.
(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An integrity management
program begins with the initial framework. An operator must continually change the
program to reflect operating experience, conclusions drawn from results of the integrity
assessments, and other maintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation of
consequences of a failure on the high consequence area. An operator must include, at
minimum, each of the following elements in its written integrity management program:
(1) A process for identifying which pipeline segments could affect a high
consequence area;
Based on a July 9, 2021 data response, SMP failed to provide the assumptions used in their water
transport analysis covering all the jurisdictional pipelines in the Polar Divide unit. Specifically,
SMP provided the results, but not the assumptions as required. Also, another July 9, 2021 data
response failed to address whether buffer zones were used and if so, the criteria and assumptions
set forth for buffer zones application.
3. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(a)…
(l) What records must an operator keep to demonstrate compliance?
(1) An operator must maintain, for the useful life of the pipeline, records that
demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this subpart. At a minimum,
an operator must maintain the following records for review during an
inspection:
3



(ii) Documents to support the decisions and analyses, including any modifications,
justifications, deviations and determinations made, variances, and actions taken, to
implement and evaluate each element of the integrity management program listed in
paragraph (f) of this section.
(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An integrity management
program begins with the initial framework. An operator must continually change the
program to reflect operating experience, conclusions drawn from results of the integrity
assessments, and other maintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation of
consequences of a failure on the high consequence area. An operator must include, at
minimum, each of the following elements in its written integrity management program:
(6) Identification of preventive and mitigative measures to protect the high consequence
area (see paragraph (i) of this section);
(i) What preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take to protect the high
consequence area?
(1) General requirements. An operator must take measures to prevent and mitigate the
consequences of a pipeline failure that could affect a high consequence area. These
measures include conducting a risk analysis of the pipeline segment to identify additional
actions to enhance public safety or environmental protection. Such actions may include,
but are not limited to, implementing damage prevention best practices, better monitoring
of cathodic protection where corrosion is a concern, establishing shorter inspection
intervals, installing EFRDs on the pipeline segment, modifying the systems that monitor
pressure and detect leaks, providing additional training to personnel on response
procedures, conducting drills with local emergency responders and adopting other
management controls.
(4) Emergency Flow Restricting Devices (EFRD). If an operator determines that an
EFRD is needed on a pipeline segment to protect a high consequence area in the event of
a hazardous liquid pipeline release, an operator must install the EFRD. In making this
determination, an operator must, at least, consider the following factors—the swiftness of
leak detection and pipeline shutdown capabilities, the type of commodity carried, the rate
of potential leakage, the volume that can be released, topography or pipeline profile, the
potential for ignition, proximity to power sources, location of nearest response personnel,
specific terrain between the pipeline segment and the high consequence area, and benefits
expected by reducing the spill size.
Based on the inspection interview, there are no records of EFRD studies on the Polar and Divide
purchased assets or on the Little Muddy pipeline built by SMP. Specifically, the record of the
SMP EFRD study on the Polar Divide system is missing. See the SMP data response below:
4



Summit purchased the Polar 10” and Divide 8” from Bear Tracker. No EFRD study was
performed by Bear Tracker prior to construction of these pipelines. However, Summit
installed remote control valves (RCVs) at Epping station for the Polar 10” at the inlet of
the station and at the outlet of the station to Colt Hub. The Divide 8” has a RCV at the
outlet of Divide station and at the inlet of the DAPL valve yard. Summit built the Little
Muddy pipeline in three phases in 2014 and 2015. A check valve was not considered
because the line is bi-directional. A remote control valve is located at the inlet of the
Little Muddy station. Summit’s control room in Houston operates the RCVs. An EFRD
analysis has been performed and implemented by Summit’s Engineering team but an
official document or record of the EFRD study cannot be located.
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to
exceed $225,134 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of
$2,251,334 for a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after January
11, 2021 and before May 3, 2021, the maximum penalty may not exceed $222,504 per
violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,225,034 for a related
series of violations. For violation occurring on or after July 31, 2019 and before January
11, 2021, the maximum penalty may not exceed $218,647 per violation per day the
violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for a related series of violations. For
violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and before July 31, 2019, the
maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day, with a maximum
penalty not to exceed $2,132,679. For violation occurring on or after November 2, 2015
and before November 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per
violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022.
We have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case,
and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment
proceedings at this time. We advise you to correct the items identified in this letter.
Failure to do so will result in Summit Midstream Partners, LLC being subject to
additional enforcement action.
No reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please
refer to CPF 3-2022-005-WL. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this
enforcement action is subject to being 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).
5



Sincerely,
Gregory A. Ochs
Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
CC: Mr. Matthew Stratmann, Senior Director, Integrity and Health & Safety, Summit
Midstream Partners, LLC, 910 Louisiana Street, Suite 4200, Houston, TX 77002,
(MStratmann@summitmidstream.com)
6
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 12138