WEST TEXAS GAS INC — Notice of Probable Violation

party submissionOfficial PDF420121008_Operator Response to Notice_06142012.pdf#

420121008_Closure_05202014_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED May 20, 2014 Mr. Richard Hatchett Vice President of Operations West Texas Gas, Inc. 211 North Colorado Midland TX 70701-4607 CPF 4-2012-1008 Dear Mr. Hatchett: On July 6-7, 2011, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected the West Texas Gas, Inc. (WTG) Public Awareness Program at the WTG offices in Plainview, Texas. A Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order was issued to WTG on May 16, 2012. WTG responded by letter dated June 14, 2012. A Final Order for this case was issued on May 17, 2013. WTG submitted a copy of amended procedures on June 27, 2013. My staff reviewed the information provided, and it appears that the inadequacies outlined in this Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order have been corrected. This letter is to inform you that no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, R. M. Seeley Director, Southwest region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration#

420121008_Final Order_06172013_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFJUNE 17, 2013 Mr. J.L. Davis President West Texas Gas, Inc. 211 N. Colorado Midland, TX 79701 Re: CPF No. 4-2012-1008 Dear Mr. Davis: Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $53,000, and specifies actions that need to be taken by West Texas Gas, Inc. to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. 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 by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Jeffrey D. Wiese Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Mr. Richard Hatchett, Vice President of Operations, West Texas Gas, Inc. 211 N. Colorado, Midland, TX 79701 Mr. R.M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED#

420121008_Final Order_06172013_text.pdf, page 2U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 ____________________________________ ) In the Matter of ) ) West Texas Gas, Inc. , ) CPF No. 4-2012-1008 ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) FINAL ORDER From July 6 and 7, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted on-site pipeline safety inspections of the Public Awareness Program (PAP) of West Texas Gas, Inc. (WTG or Respondent) in Plainview, Texas. Respondent owns and operates approximately 7,200 miles of pipeline, including natural gas distribution, natural gas transmission, gathering, and hazardous liquids transmission pipelines within the states of Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. 1 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated May 16, 2012, 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 WTG committed three violations of 49 C.F.R. §192.616(c) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $53,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violation. WTG responded to the Notice by letter dated June 14, 2012 (Response). The company did not contest the allegations of violation but provided information concerning the corrective actions it had taken. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one. FINDINGS OF VIOLATION In its Response, WTG did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows: Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c), which states: 1 See http://www.westtexasgas.com/?page_id=12 (last accessed February 20, 2013)#

420121008_Final Order_06172013_text.pdf, page 32 § 192.616 Public awareness. (a) Except for an operator of a master meter or petroleum gas system covered under paragraph (j) of this section, each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education program that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7) (b) … (c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations, including baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless the operator provides justification in its program or procedural manual as to why compliance with all or certain provisions of the recommended practice is not practicable and not necessary for safety. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c) by failing to develop and implement a written public education program that followed the general program recommendations, including baseline and supplemental requirements, provided in American Petroleum Institute’s (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162. Specifically, the Notice alleged WTG’s Public Awareness Program (PAP) had been developed by copying API RP 1162 and revising the text to substitute the phrase “WTG/WGI” for “the operator”, adding the phrase “WTG/WGI” throughout the text of its PAP, and deleting all language not specifically related to natural gas transmission operators.2 PHMSA’s audit also revealed that WTG’s PAP did not take into account the unique attributes of Respondent’s pipeline system. Each pipeline is unique and has its own specific attributes such as its geographical location, design, operating environment, the commodity being transported, and other factors. Operators are required to develop and implement a public education program that takes into consideration the unique attributes of the operator’s pipeline system. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c) by failing to develop and implement a written public education program that followed the guidance provided in API RP 1162. Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c), which states: § 192.616 Public awareness. (a) … (c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations, including baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless the operator provides justification in its program or procedural manual as to why compliance with all or certain provisions of the recommended practice is not practicable and not necessary for safety. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c) by failing to follow and implement a public education program meeting the general program recommendations set forth 2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report) (May 16, 2012) (on file with PHMSA), Exhibit A.#

420121008_Final Order_06172013_text.pdf, page 43 in API RP 1162, including baseline and supplemental requirements. Specifically, the Notice alleged that WTG failed to conduct an annual audit to determine whether its PAP had been developed and implemented in accordance with WTG’s PAP, Section 8.3, and Table 8-1 of API RP 1162.3 In its Response, WTG contended that it had conducted an audit to determine whether its PAP had been developed and implemented in accordance with the regulatory requirements. However, the company did not provide any documentation to support its claim that an audit had been performed. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c) by failing to conduct an annual audit to determine whether its PAP had been developed to follow general program recommendations set forth in API RP 1162 and the company’s procedures. Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c), which states: § 192.616 Public awareness. (a) … (c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations, including baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless the operator provides justification in its program or procedural manual as to why compliance with all or certain provisions of the recommended practice is not practicable and not necessary for safety. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c) by failing to follow and implement a public education program meeting the program recommendations of API RP 1162, including baseline and supplemental requirements and its company’s procedures. Specifically, the Notice alleged that WTG did not evaluate the effectiveness of its PAP every four years, in accordance with WTG PAP, Section 8.4.2. and Table 8-1 of API RP 1162.4 Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c) by failing to evaluate the effectiveness of its PAP in accordance with company procedures and the general program recommendations set forth in API RP 1162. These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent. 3 WTG’s PAP, Section 8.3 reads: “WGT/WGI shall complete an annual audit or review of whether the program has been developed and implemented according to the guidelines in API RP 1162. The purpose of the audit is to answer the following two questions: (1) Has the Public Awareness Program been developed and written to address the objectives, elements and baseline schedule as described [in] Section 2 and the remainder of this API RP 1162? and (2) Has the Public Awareness Program been implemented and documented according to the written program?” See Violation Report, Exhibit A. 4 WTG’s PAP, Section 8.4.2 reads: “Once validated in this initial manner, a program effectiveness survey is only required about every four years. However, when the operator introduces major design changes in its Public Awareness Program a survey to validate the new approaches may be warranted” . In addition, Table -8.1 of API RP 1162 recommends an effectiveness evaluation no more than four years apart. Id.#

420121008_Final Order_06172013_text.pdf, page 54 ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 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; the Respondent’s ability to pay the penalty 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 $53,000 for the violations cited above. Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $26,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c), for failing to conduct an annual audit to determine whether its PAP had been developed and implemented in accordance with WTG’s PAP, Section 8.3, and Table 8-1 and guidance in API RP 1162. WTG did not present any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed penalty. WTG is fully culpable for the violation. Respondent was cognizant of the requirement to follow the program recommendations of API RP 1162, and the company’s requirements to conduct an annual audit of its PAP. Furthermore, Respondent’s prior enforcement history was taken into account. The operator had fourteen violations in the five years that preceded the issuance of the Notice.5 Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $26,800, for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c). Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $26,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c), for failing to evaluate the effectiveness of its PAP every four years, in accordance with company procedures and the general program recommendations set forth in API RP 1162. WTG neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed penalty. WTG is fully culpable for the violation. Respondent was cognizant of the requirement to follow API RP 1162 and to evaluate the effectiveness of its PAP every four years. Furthermore, Respondent’s prior enforcement history was taken into account.6 The operator had fourteen violations in the five years that preceded the issuance of the Notice. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $26,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c). 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 $53,000. 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 5 Violation Report at 21. 6 Id.#

420121008_Final Order_06172013_text.pdf, page 65 instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893. COMPLIANCE ORDER The Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. 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 § 192.616(c) (Item 1), Respondent must revise its Public Awareness Program to reflect the unique characteristics of WTG’s pipeline system. 2. West Texas must submit a copy of the entire revised West Texas Gas Public Awareness Program to the Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA within 180 days of receipt of the Final Order. 3. It is requested, but not required, that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to R.M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, 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. 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 and demonstrating good cause for an extension. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties not to exceed $100,000 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. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. ___________________________________ __________________________ Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#

420121008_NOPV PCP PCO_05162012_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY and PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED May 16, 2012 Richard Hatchett Vice President of Operations West Texas Gas, Inc. 211 North Colorado Midland TX 70701-4607 CPF 4-2012-1008 Dear Mr. Hatchett: On July 6 and 7, 2011, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code was onsite and inspected the West Texas Gas, Inc. (WTG) Public Awareness Program (PAP) at the WTG offices in Plainview, Texas. As a result of the inspection, it appears that WTG has committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violation(s) are: 1. §192.616 Public Awareness (c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations, including baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless the operator provides justification in its program or procedural manual as to why conditions with all or certain provisions of the recommended practice is not practicable and not necessary for safety.#

420121008_NOPV PCP PCO_05162012_text.pdf, page 2WTG did not prepare their PAP in accordance with the regulations. Specifically WTG did not include their unique attributes and characteristics in their PAP. API RP 1162 section 1.3.2 Baseline Public Awareness Program states: “Refers to general program recommendations, set forth in Recommended Practice 1162, The baseline recommendations do not take into consideration the unique attributes and characteristics of individual pipeline operators’ pipeline and facilities. Supplemental or enhanced program components are described in the RP to provide guidelines to the operator for enhancing its Public Awareness Programs. This is described more fully in Sections 2 and 6.” The WTG PAP consists mainly of language from parts of API RP 1162 applicable to natural gas transmission systems. In creating its PAP, it appears that WTG started with API RP 1162, substituted “WTG/WGI” for “the operator,” added “WTG/WGI” in a number of locations, deleted all language not specifically related to natural gas transmission operators, deleted Figure 2-1 and made only very minor additional editorial changes. As a result, the WTG PAP does not appear to take into consideration any of the unique attributes and characteristics of the WTG system. Based on the on-site inspection, it appears that WTG had little interest in actively participating in the implementation of its PAP. This is consistent with the simplistic approach taken in the creation of the WTG PAP. 2. §192.616 Public Awareness (c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations, including baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless the operator provides justification in its program or procedural manual as to why conditions with all or certain provisions of the recommended practice is not practicable and not necessary for safety. WTG failed to conduct annual audits or reviews of whether the (PAP) program has been developed and implemented according to the guidelines contained in API RP 1162. Specifically section 8.3 of WTG’s PAP states: “WGT/WGI shall complete an annual audit or review of whether the program has been developed and implemented according to the guidelines in API RP 1162. The purpose of the audit is to answer the following two questions: • Has the Public Awareness Program been developed and written to address the objectives, elements and baseline schedule as described Section 2 and the remainder of this API RP 1162? • Has the Public Awareness Program been implemented and documented according to the written program?” Both section 8.3 and Table 8-1 of the WTG PAP require an annual audit or review of whether the (PAP) program has been developed and implemented according to the guidelines contained in API RP 1162. Both the WTG PAP and API RP 1162 cite Appendix E to API RP 1162 for a sample set of questions that will aid the program administrator and district managers in auditing the program implementation process. During the inspection, WTG asserted that annual reviews had been conducted and researched meeting notes and other records but produced nothing that could be reasonably considered an annual audit or review. Upon further questioning by the inspector, WTG appeared unfamiliar with the sample set of2#

420121008_NOPV PCP PCO_05162012_text.pdf, page 3questions contained in Appendix E to API RP 1162 and ultimately admitted that annual audits or reviews had not been conducted. 3. 49 CFR §192.616(c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations, including baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless the operator provides justification in its program or procedural manual as to why conditions with all or certain provisions of the recommended practice is not practicable and not necessary for safety. WTG failed to conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of the PAP implementation every four years. Specifically WTG’s PAP section 8.4.2 states: “… Once validated in this initial manner, a program effectiveness survey is only required about every four years. However, when the operator introduces major design changes in its Public Awareness Program a survey to validate the new approaches may be warranted.” Table 8.1 adds the recommended frequency is “No more than four years apart”. During the inspection, WTG admitted that they had never conducted a four-year effectiveness evaluation. Proposed Civil Penalties Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violations and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $53,000 as follows: Item number PENALTY 2. $26,800 3. $26,200 Proposed Compliance Order With respect to these items, pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to West Texas Gas, Inc. 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. 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). 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 this3#

420121008_NOPV PCP PCO_05162012_text.pdf, page 4Notice 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 4-2012-1008 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 4#

420121008_NOPV PCP PCO_05162012_text.pdf, page 5PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to West Texas Gas, Inc. a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of West Texas Gas, Inc. with the pipeline safety regulations: 1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to the failure not take into consideration the unique attributes and characteristics of WTG’s’ pipeline and facilities, WTG must revise its PAP to reflect the unique characteristics of the WTG system and submit a copy of the entire revised WTG PAP to the PHMSA Southwest Region within 180 days of the Final Order. 2. It is requested (not mandated) that WTG maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, 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. 5#