{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420135025","title":"CHAPARRAL ENERGY, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-10-31","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.111, 195.214, 195.403, 195.420.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420135025.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420135025.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420135025","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420135025","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving CHAPARRAL ENERGY, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.111,  195.214,  195.403,  195.420. The case was opened on 2013-10-31 and is reported as closed as of 2014-12-12. Proposed civil penalty: $47,900. Assessed civil penalty: $47,900. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420135025_Final Order_12122014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420135025/420135025_Final%20Order_12122014.pdf\n\n420135025_Final Order_12122014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420135025/420135025_Final%20Order_12122014_text.pdf\n\n420135025_NOPV PCP PCO_10312013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420135025/420135025_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_10312013.pdf\n\n420135025_NOPV PCP PCO_10312013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420135025/420135025_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_10312013_text.pdf\n\n420135025_Operator Response and Request for Time Extension_11262013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420135025/420135025_Operator%20Response%20and%20Request%20for%20Time%20Extension_11262013.pdf\n\n420135025_Final Order_12122014_text.pdf\n\nDECEMBER 12, 2014\nMr. Mark Fischer\nChairman, Chief Executive Officer\nChaparral Energy, LLC\n701 Cedar Lake Blvd.\nOklahoma City, OK 73114\nRe: CPF No. 4-2013-5025\nDear Mr. Fischer:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $47,900. It further finds that Chaparral Energy, LLC,\nhas completed the actions specified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations.\nSince the civil penalty was paid by wire transfer dated January 10, 2014, this enforcement action\nwill be closed upon service of this Final Order. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is\ndeemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. R.M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA, OPS\nMr. David Ketelsleger, SVP and General Counsel, Chaparral Energy, LLC\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nChaparral Energy, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2013-5025\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn multiple dates in 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Chaparral Energy,\nLLC (Chaparral or Respondent), in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas. Chaparral is a privately-\nowned oil and gas exploration/drilling company that operates approximately 230 miles of\nhazardous liquid pipelines in these three states.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated October 31, 2013, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) which also included a warning pursuant to\n49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nChaparral had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.111, 195.214, and 195.420 and assessing a civil penalty\nof $47,900 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take\ncertain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning item required no further action,\nbut warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face possible enforcement action.\nChaparral responded to the Notice by letter dated January 9, 2014 (Response). The company did\nnot contest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $47,900, as\nprovided in 49 C.F.R. § 190.227. Payment of the penalty serves to close the case with prejudice\nto Respondent.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Chaparral did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 195, as follows:\n1 PHMSA Annual Report, Chaparral Energy, LLC. See\nhttps://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/operator/OperatorReport opid 31672.html?nocache=6234.\n\n\n\nCPF No: 4-2013-5025\nPage 2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.111, which states:\n§ 195.111 Fracture propagation.\nA carbon dioxide pipeline system must be designed to mitigate\nthe effects of fracture propagation.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.111 by failing to design its\nrecently-constructed carbon dioxide pipeline system to mitigate the effects of fracture\npropagation. Specifically, the Notice alleged that despite multiple requests from PHMSA,\nChaparral was unable to produce a fracture propagation analysis demonstrating that its carbon-\ndioxide Farnsworth Laterals had been designed to mitigate the effects of fracture propagation\nprior to, or subsequent to commissioning of the lines in 2011. Chaparral could not demonstrate it\nhad performed a separate fracture propagation analysis for each of the Farnsworth Laterals, as\nfollows:\n• 4” east lateral, constructed Oct/Nov 2010\n• 6” west lateral, constructed Jan/Mar 2011.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.111 by failing to design its\nrecently-constructed carbon dioxide pipeline system to mitigate the effects of fracture\npropagation.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214, which states:\n§ 195.214 Welding procedures.\n(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder in accordance\nwith welding procedures qualified under Section 5 of API 1104 or Section\nIX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (incorporated by\nreference, see § 195.3). The quality of the test welds used to qualify the\nwelding procedure shall be determined by destructive testing.\n(b) Each welding procedure must be recorded in detail, including the\nresults of the qualifying tests. This record must be retained and followed\nwhenever the procedure is used.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214 by using welding procedures\non the Farnsworth Laterals, as described above, that had not been properly qualified in\naccordance with Section 5 of [American Petroleum Institute (API)] 1104 or Section IX of the\nASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Specifically, the Notice alleged that PHMSA requested\na copy of Chaparral’s complete welding procedure, including both the welding procedure\nspecification (WPS) as well as the procedure qualification record (PQR). According to the\nNotice, Respondent provided qualification records indicating its welders had been qualified to\nprocedure “A100” (but with no procedure qualification documents), and the “A100” procedure\nwas missing important elements that would qualify it as a complete welding procedure.\n\n\n\nCPF No: 4-2013-5025\nPage 3\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214 by using welding\nprocedures on the Farnsworth Laterals that were not qualified in accordance with Section 5 of\nAPI 1104 or Section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420, which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain each valve that is necessary for\nthe safe operation of its pipeline systems in good working order at all\ntimes.\n(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at\nleast twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine\nthat it is functioning properly. . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420 by failing to perform valve\ninspections at proper intervals, and by failing to perform complete inspections in order to\ndetermine that each valve functioned properly. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Chaparral\ncould not produce valve maintenance records on the Borger mainline block valves (MLVs) 3 and\n6 showing they had been inspected in April 2011. Instead, the company’s valve maintenance\nrecords allegedly indicated that MLVs 3 and 6 had been inspected in November 2010 and\nDecember 2010, but did not show that inspections had been conducted in April 2011, when\ninspections had been conducted for the other MLVs.\nIn addition, the Notice alleged that Chaparral failed to perform proper inspections for all of the\nvalves inspected in November 2010 and December 2011. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nthe company’s maintenance records indicated the valves “could not operate due to operating\nconditions.” Chaparral’s Operation and Management (O&M) procedures implementing\n§ 195.420(b) required valves to be operated “to the fullest extent practical and then returned to\n[their] position,” but there was no follow-up documentation indicating Respondent had returned\nto perform maintenance on the valves when conditions were more favorable.\nRespondent did not contest these allegations of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of\nall of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420 by failing to perform\nvalve inspections at proper intervals and by failing to perform complete inspections in order to\ndetermine that each valve functioned properly.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\n\n\n\nCPF No: 4-2013-5025\nPage 4\nrelated series of violations.2 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $47,900 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $19,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.111, for failing to design its recently-constructed carbon dioxide pipeline system to\nmitigate the effects of fracture propagation. Chaparral paid the proposed penalty in full, which\nserves to close the case with prejudice to Respondent. Accordingly, having reviewed the record\nand considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $19,000 for the\nviolation cited above.\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $28,900 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.420, for failing to perform valve inspections at the proper intervals and to determine that\nall valves were functioning properly. Chaparral paid the proposed penalty in full, which serves\nto close the case with prejudice to Respondent. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $28,900 for the\nviolation cited above.\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $47,900, which amount has\nalready been paid by Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.111 and 195.214, respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each\nperson who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a\npipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under\nchapter 601. The Director indicates that Respondent has taken the following actions specified in\nthe proposed compliance order:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.111 (Item 1), Respondent submitted\nrecently-completed fracture propagation analyses for the Farnsworth Laterals to the\nDirector on January 9, 2014.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.214 (Item 2), Respondent provided\n2 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat.\n1904, January 3, 2012, increased the civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to $200,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.\n\n\n\nCPF No: 4-2013-5025\nPage 5\nqualification paperwork for the weld procedure (A101) that was actually used on the\nFarnsworth Laterals. Respondent also provided confirmation that the weld procedure\nused on the lines had been properly qualified and documented.\nThe Region Director has reviewed Respondent’s submissions under Items 1 and 2 and has found\nthem to be satisfactory. Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included\nin this Order.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 3, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 195 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning\nitem. The warning is for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.403 (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to adequately\ndocument its emergency response training program.\nChaparral presented information in its Response showing it had taken certain actions to address\nthis item. If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may\nbe subject to future enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n420135025_NOPV PCP PCO_10312013_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nOctober 31, 2013\nMr. David Ketelsleger\nSVP General Counsel\nChaparral Energy LLC\n701 Cedar Lake Blvd\nOklahoma City OK 73114\nCPF 4-2013-5025\nDear Mr. Ketelsleger:\nOn multiples dates in April, May, August, September, and October, 2012, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\npursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected Chaparral Energy CO2 pipeline records and\nfacilities in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline\nSafety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable\nviolations are:\n1. §195.111 Fracture propagation.\nA carbon dioxide pipeline system must be designed to mitigate the effects of fracture\npropagation.\n\n\n\nChaparral could not demonstrate that it had designed its recently constructed pipeline(s) to\nmitigate the effects of fracture propagation.\nA documented fracture propagation analysis was requested by PHMSA to demonstrate\ncompliance with the requirement that the Farnsworth Laterals were designed to mitigate the\neffects of fracture propagation. It was determined that Chaparral had not performed a fracture\npropagation analysis. In addition, Chaparral could not demonstrate that fracture propagation\ndesign considerations and analysis had been performed prior to or subsequent to the\ncommissioning of the Farnsworth laterals in 2011.\nThe fracture propagation analysis for the Farnsworth laterals was requested multiple times by\nPHMSA Southwest Region personnel, including at the initial construction inspection\ndocumentation review in April 2012, and during subsequent and follow up inspections (office\nand field), telephone conversations and by email.\nAlso, the construction of the Coffeyville pipeline took place contemporaneously with the 2012\nPHMSA Southwest Region inspection of the existing Chaparral CO2 pipelines, including the\nFarnsworth laterals. The necessity for each of the three pipelines to have its own fracture\npropagation analysis performed was discussed and that Chaparral should commence work upon a\ndocumented fracture propagation analysis for the Coffeyville pipeline project while there was\nstill time to avoid placing that pipeline in service without being in compliance with the\nrequirement that it be designed to mitigate the effects of fracture propagation. A fracture\npropagation analysis for the Coffeyville pipeline was accomplished and was (after revision)\nfound by PHMSA to be acceptable, in August 2012.\nDue to differences in construction and materials, there is still the requirement to perform a\nseparate fracture propagation analysis for each of the Farnsworth Laterals as follows:\n• 4\" east lateral constructed Oct/Nov 2010\n• 6\" west lateral constructed Jan/Mar 2011\n2. § 195.214 Welding procedures\n(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder in accordance with welding\nprocedures qualified under Section 5 of API 1104 or Section IX of the ASME Boiler and\nPressure Vessel Code (ibr, see § 195.3) . The quality of the test welds used to qualify the\nwelding procedure shall be determined by destructive testing.\n(b) Each welding procedure must be recorded in detail, including the results of the\nqualifying tests. This record must be retained and followed whenever the procedure is\nused.\n2\n\n\n\nWelding performed during the construction of the Farnsworth Lateral was not performed in\naccordance with a qualified welding procedure. Welding procedures presented by Chaparral\nwere not qualified in accordance with Section 5 of API 1104 or Section IX of the ASME Boiler\nand Pressure Vessel Code (ibr, see § 195.3) . Chaparral has not shown that the quality of the test\nwelds used to qualify the welding procedure was determined by destructive testing, or that test\nwelds were examined. The welding procedure presented did not include the results of qualifying\ntests and was missing essential variables.\nThere are two Farnsworth Laterals as follows:\n• 4\" east lateral constructed Oct/Nov 2010\n• 6\" west lateral constructed Jan/Mar 2011\nAt the initial construction inspection documentation review in April 2012 PHMSA personnel\nrequested the welder qualification records and the welding procedure specification (WPS) as\nwell as the procedure qualification record (PQR) for the welding performed during the\nconstruction of the Farnsworth Laterals. A complete welding procedure contains both the WPS\nand the PQR.\nThe welder qualification records presented at the inspection indicated that welders were qualified\nto procedure “A100.” There was not a procedure qualification record available from Chaparral\nfor this weld procedure A100 to which welders were qualified. A one page procedure\nspecification document was available for procedure “A100,” however; no procedure\nqualification document was ever produced, despite repeated requests from PHMSA personnel\nduring the course of the inspection.\nIt also appears that the welding procedure “A100” presented at the audit is missing important\nessential variables, such as speed of travel and other parameters, such as material group\ndiscrepancies between procedure and construction, and discrepancies between weld procedure\nand welder qualification such as changes in filler group and joint design.\n3. §195.403 Emergency Response Training.\n(a) Each operator shall establish and conduct a continuing training program to instruct emergency\nresponse personnel to:\n(1) Carry out the emergency procedures established under 195.402 that relate to their assignments;\n(2) Know the characteristics and hazards of the hazardous liquids or carbon dioxide transported,\nincluding, in case of flammable HVL, flammability of mixtures with air, odorless vapors, and water\nreactions;\n(3) Recognize conditions that are likely to cause emergencies, predict the consequences of facility\nmalfunctions or failures and hazardous liquids or carbon dioxide spills, and take appropriate\ncorrective action;\n(4) Take steps necessary to control any accidental release of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide\nand to minimize the potential for fire, explosion, toxicity, or environmental damage; and\n3\n\n\n\n(5) Learn the potential causes, types, sizes, and consequences of fire and the appropriate use of\nportable fire extinguishers and other on-site fire control equipment, involving, where feasible, a\nsimulated pipeline emergency condition.\n(b) At the intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, each operator\nshall:\n(1) Review with personnel their performance in meeting the objectives of the emergency response\ntraining program set forth in paragraph (a) of this section; and\n(2) Make appropriate changes to the emergency response training program as necessary to ensure\nthat it is effective.\nPHMSA was unable to confirm that Chaparral conducted the appropriate emergency response\ntraining. PHMSA requested documentation to demonstrate appropriate training of emergency\nresponse personnel during the records portion of the inspection. There was not adequate\ndocumentation provided by Chaparral at the 2012 inspection to demonstrate appropriate training\nof emergency response personnel. Chaparral indicated that emergency response personnel\ntraining would be conducted as soon as possible. Chaparral has since provided documentation of\nemergency response personnel training, conducted in the first quarter of 2013 at locations where\nChaparral personnel are stationed.\n4. § 195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain each valve that is necessary for the safe operation of its\npipeline systems in good working order at all times.\n(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7 1/2 months, but at least twice each\ncalendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that it is functioning properly.\nChaparral did not perform valve inspections at the proper intervals and inspections were not\ncomplete in order to determine that each valve could function properly. PHMSA personnel\nrequested Chaparral valve maintenance records and related documentation during the records\nportion of the inspection. Chaparral valve maintenance records were missing on the Borger line\nfor some mainline block valves. Valve maintenance records indicate that mainline block valves\n(MLV) 3 and 6 were inspected in November 2010 and December 2011. Other mainline block\nvalves were inspected in April 2011 per the documentation provided at the inspection; however,\nthere was no indication on the April 2011 valve inspection report that either MLV 3 or 6 were\ninspected at that time.\nIn addition, Chaparral valve maintenance records are noted as “5 - could not operate due to\noperating conditions” for all valves listed on the November 2010 and December 2011 valve\nmaintenance records. Chaparral O&M procedure 195.420 Valve Maintenance Process\nDescription states “Valves should be operated to the fullest extent practical and then returned to\nits position…” There was no documentation provided to indicate that further valve maintenance\nwas performed, such as returning to a valve to perform a partial operation of that valve when\noperating conditions became more favorable to performing valve maintenance and inspection\nactivities.\n4\n\n\n\nThe evidence demonstrates that the operator violated § 195.420 by failing to conduct a proper\ninspection per the regulations related to inspecting each main line valve. In the event that such\ninspections were, in fact, performed, the evidence demonstrates the operator violated\n§195.404(c)(3) by failing to maintain a record of each inspection and test required by this subpart\nfor at least 2 years or until the next inspection or test is performed, whichever is longer.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per\nviolation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of violations.\nFor violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per\nviolation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations.\nThe Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the\nabove probable violation(s) and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of\n$47,900 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $19,000\n4 $28,900\nWarning Items\nWith respect to item(s) 3 we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in\nthis case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment\nproceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these item(s). Failure to do so may result\nin additional enforcement action.\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items numbers 1 and 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Chaparral. Please\nrefer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nCompliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All material you\nsubmit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you believe that any\nportion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along\nwith the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions\nyou believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the\nredacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond\nwithin 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations\n5\n\n\n\nin this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in\nthis Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2013-5025 and for each document you\nsubmit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n6\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA) proposes to issue to Chaparral Energy LLC a Compliance Order incorporating the following\nremedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Chaparral Energy LLC with the pipeline safety\nregulations:\n1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to fracture propagation analyses,\nChaparral shall perform a technically sound fracture propagation analysis for each of the\nFarnsworth Laterals. This analysis should be completed with 30 days of the Final Order.\nShould the fracture propagation analysis determine that the existing design and\nconstruction of either or both of the Farnsworth laterals as commissioned is deficient with\nregard to mitigating the effects of fracture propagation, Chaparral develop a plan and\nsubmit that to PHMSA with 30 days of completing the analysis for approval.\n2. 4. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to incomplete welding procedure\ndocumentation, including no procedure qualification document for welding procedure\nA100, Chaparral shall qualify this procedure per the appropriate standard and submit the\ndocumentation showing that A100 is a complete and qualified welding procedure.\nChaparral shall separately address quality of weld issues as could be related to all missing\nessential variables in the A100 document as presented by Chaparral as the procedure used\nin constructing the Farnsworth laterals.\nChaparral shall complete item 2 within 30 days of the issuance of the Final Order.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Chaparral maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total\nto R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost\nassociated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2)\ntotal cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline\ninfrastructure.\n7","truncated":false,"body_characters":29219}