{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420195019","title":"WEST TEXAS GULF PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2019-10-24","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.406(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420195019.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420195019.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420195019","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420195019","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving WEST TEXAS GULF PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.406(a). The case was opened on 2019-10-24 and is reported as closed as of 2025-09-12. Proposed civil penalty: $64,600. Assessed civil penalty: $64,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420195019_Closure Letter_09122025_(18-162842S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195019/420195019_Closure%20Letter_09122025_(18-162842S).pdf\n\n420195019_Closure Letter_09122025_(18-162842S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195019/420195019_Closure%20Letter_09122025_(18-162842S)_text.pdf\n\n420195019_Final Order_07272020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195019/420195019_Final%20Order_07272020.pdf\n\n420195019_Final Order_07272020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195019/420195019_Final%20Order_07272020_text.pdf\n\n420195019_NOPV PCP PCO_10242019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195019/420195019_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_10242019.pdf\n\n420195019_NOPV PCP PCO_10242019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195019/420195019_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_10242019_text.pdf\n\n420195019_Operator Response to the Notice_11212019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195019/420195019_Operator%20Response%20to%20the%20Notice_11212019.pdf\n\n420195019_NOPV PCP PCO_10242019_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nOctober 24, 2019\nGreg McIlwain\nSenior Vice-President Operations\nEnergy Transfer Company\n1300 Main Street\nHouston, TX 77002\nCPF 4-2019-5019\nDear Mr. McIlwain:\nBetween October 14, 2018 and July 24, 2019, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter\n601 of 49 United States Code, conducted an investigation of your subsidiary, West Texas Gulf\nPipe Line Company, regarding two releases on the West Texas Gulf Pipeline system (between\nColorado City to Abilene, Texas) that occurred on October 14 and 20, 2018, in Nolan and Taylor\nCounty, Texas. The investigation included a review of records and procedures.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The item inspected and\nthe probable violation is:\n\n\n\n1. §195.406 Maximum operating pressure.\n(a) Except for surge pressures and other variations from normal operations,\nno operator may operate a pipeline at a pressure that exceeds any of the following:\n(1) The internal design pressure of the pipe determined in accordance\nwith §195.106. However, for steel pipe in pipelines being converted under §195.5,\nif one or more factors of the design formula (§195.106) are unknown, one of the\nfollowing pressures is to be used as design pressure:\n(i) Eighty percent of the first test pressure that produces yield under section\nN5.0 of Appendix N of ASME/ANSI B31.8 (incorporated by\nreference, see §195.3), reduced by the appropriate factors in §§195.106(a)\nand (e); or\n(ii) If the pipe is 323.8 mm (12¾ in) or less outside diameter and is not tested\nto yield under this paragraph, 1379 kPa (200 psig).\n(2) The design pressure of any other component of the pipeline.\n(3) Eighty percent of the test pressure for any part of the pipeline which has been\npressure tested under Subpart E of this part.\n(4) Eighty percent of the factory test pressure or of the prototype test pressure\nfor any individually installed component which is excepted from testing\nunder §195.305.\n(5) For pipelines under §195.302(b)(1) and (b)(2)(i), that have not been pressure\ntested under Subpart E of this part, 80 percent of the test pressure or highest\noperating pressure to which the pipeline was subjected for 4 or more continuous\nhours that can be demonstrated by recording charts or logs made at the time the\ntest or operations were conducted.\nWest Texas Gulf Pipe Line Company (WTG) failed to establish a maximum operating\npressure (MOP) for its WTG # 1 (Colorado City to Wortham, Texas) and WTG # 2\n(Wortham to Nederville, Texas) pipelines in accordance with 49 CFR § 195.406. The\npipeline has operated without an established MOP since 2002.\nWhile reviewing two National Response Center reports, the PHMSA inspector found that\nWTG did not have records to validate the MOP for the WTG # 1 (Colorado City to\nWortham, Texas) and WTG # 2 (Wortham to Nederland, Texas) pipelines. WTG could not\nproduce pressure test records, operating pressure charts, logs or other supporting evidence\nto show that the MOP of its WTG Pipeline was set in accordance with 49 CFR §195.406(a).\nSpecifically, WTG did not perform hydrostatic tests on ten segments of the pipeline systems.\nSix segements were tested by 2018; however four segments remain untested, and include\nthe Abilene to Ranger, Ranger to Blum and Blum to Wortham segments on the WTG #1\nsystem, and Wortham to Longview on the WTG #2 system.\n2\n\n\n\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for a related\nseries of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and before July 31,\n2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day, with a maximum\npenalty not to exceed $2,132,679. For violation occurring on or after November 2, 2015 and before\nNovember 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per violation per day, with a\nmaximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015,\nthe maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty\nnot to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed\nthe circumstances and supporting documentation involved for the above probable violation(s) and\nhas recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $64,600 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $64,600\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item 1 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to West Texas Gulf Pipeline Company.\nPlease refer 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\nmaterial you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you\nbelieve that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5\nU.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the\ndocument with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an\nexplanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under\n5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request a\nhearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice,\nthis constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further\nnotice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this Notice, we propose that you\nsubmit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from receipt of this Notice. This period\nmay be extended by written request for good cause.\n3\n\n\n\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2019-5019 and, for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nMary L. McDaniel, P.E.\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n4\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to West Texas Gulf Pipeline Company (WTG) a\nCompliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of\nWTG with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. In regard to Item 1 of the Notice pertaining to the operator’s failure to have\nestablished a maximum operating pressure (MOP), WTG must submit operating\npressure recording charts or logs to verify the maximum operating pressure (MOP)\nper § 195.406(a)(5), or perform a pressure test per the requirements of §\n195.406(a)(3) to establish an MOP of its WTG # 1 (Colorado City to Wortham,\nTexas) and WTG # 2 (Wortham to Nederville, Texas) pipelines. WTG shall develop\nand provide Director with the detailed process and schedule by which it will\ncomplete hydrostatic pressure testing of all remaining pipeline segments.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that West Texas Gulf Pipeline Company maintain\ndocumentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this\nCompliance Order and submit the total to Mary L. McDaniel, Director, Southwest\nRegion, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested\nthat these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost\nassociated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline\ninfrastructure.\n5\n\n420195019_Closure Letter_09122025_(18-162842S)_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration 8701 S. Gessner, Suite 630\nHouston TX 77074\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tom.long@energytransfer.com\nSeptember 12, 2025\nMr. Thomas E. Long\nChief Executive Officer\nEnergy Transfer Company, LP\n8111 Westchester Drive\nDallas, Texas 75225\nRE: CPF 4-2019-5019\nDear Mr. Long:\nOn July 27, 2020, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued\nto West Texas Gulf Pipe Line Company, LLC, a subsidiary of Energy Transfer, L.P, (WTG) a\nFinal Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order and Civil\nPenalty assessment. Based on our review of the documentation provided and confirmation of\npayment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that WTG has successfully complied with the\nterms of the Final Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed, and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nBryan Lethcoe\nDirector, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Gregory McIlwain, Executive Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,\ngregory.mcilwain@energytransfer.com\nTodd Nardozzi, Director, Regulatory Compliance, Energy Transfer Company,\ntodd.nardozzi@energytransfer.com\n\n420195019_Final Order_07272020_text.pdf\n\nJuly 27, 2020\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: gregory.mcilwain@energytransfer.com\nMr. Greg McIlwain\nSenior Vice President of Operations\nWest Texas Gulf Pipe Line Company, LLC\n1300 Main Street\nHouston, Texas 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2019-5019\nDear Mr. McIlwain:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $64,600 and specifies actions that need to be taken by West\nTexas Gulf Pipe Line Company, LLC, a subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP, to comply with the\npipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When\nthe civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined\nby the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final\nOrder by electronic mail is effective upon the date of transmission as provided under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Kelcy Warren, President and Chief Executive Officer, Energy Transfer, LP,\nkelcy.warren@energytransfer.com\nCONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of )\n)\n)\nWest Texas Gulf Pipe Line Company, LLC, a subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP, )\nRespondent. )\n)\n)\n) CPF No. 4-2019-5019\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom October 14, 2018, through July 24, 2019, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative\nof the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline\nSafety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety investigation of the facilities and records of\nWest Texas Gulf Pipe Line Company, LLC (WTG or Respondent), in Texas following two\nreleases during hydrostatic pressure testing in October 2018.1 WTG, a subsidiary of Energy\nTransfer, LP, operates a 26-inch diameter hazardous liquid pipeline from Colorado City, Texas,\nto Longview, Texas.\nAs a result of the investigation, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated October 24, 2019, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that WTG had violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a) and proposed assessing a\ncivil penalty of $64,600 for the alleged violation. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent\nto take certain measures to correct the alleged violation.\nEnergy Transfer, LP, on behalf of WTG, responded to the Notice by letter dated November 21,\n2019 (Response). The company did not contest the allegation of violation or proposed\ncompliance actions, but did request that the proposed civil penalty be reduced based on certain\nadditional information. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right\nto one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, WTG did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part\n195, as follows:\n1 See National Response Center (NRC) Report #1227441(Oct. 14, 2018) and NRC Report #1228043 (Oct. 20, 2018).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-5019\nPage 2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a), which states:\n§ 195.406 Maximum operating pressure.\n(a) Except for surge pressures and other variations from normal\noperations, no operator may operate a pipeline at a pressure that exceeds\nany of the following:\n(1) The internal design pressure of the pipe determined in accordance\nwith § 195.106. However, for steel pipe in pipelines being converted under\n§ 195.5, if one or more factors of the design formula (§ 195.106) are\nunknown, one of the following pressures is to be used as design pressure:\n(i) Eighty percent of the first test pressure that produces yield under\nsection N5.0 of appendix N of ASME/ANSI B31.8 (incorporated by\nreference, see § 195.3), reduced by the appropriate factors in §§ 195.106 (a)\nand (e); or\n(ii) If the pipe is 12 ¾ inch (324 mm) or less outside diameter and is not\ntested to yield under this paragraph, 200 p.s.i. (1379 kPa) gage.\n(2) The design pressure of any other component of the pipeline.\n(3) Eighty percent of the test pressure for any part of the pipeline which\nhas been pressure tested under subpart E of this part.\n(4) Eighty percent of the factory test pressure or of the prototype test\npressure for any individually installed component which is excepted from\ntesting under § 195.305.\n(5) For pipelines under §§ 195.302(b)(1) and (b)(2)(i) that have not been\npressure tested under subpart E of this part, 80 percent of the test pressure\nor highest operating pressure to which the pipeline was subjected for 4 or\nmore continuous hours that can be demonstrated by recording charts or logs\nmade at the time the test or operations were conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a) by operating a pipeline that\nexceeded an established maximum operating pressure (MOP). Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat WTG failed to have records to validate the MOP for the company’s WTG #1 pipeline\nsegment (Colorado City to Wortham, Texas) and its WTG #2 pipeline segment (Wortham to\nNederland, Texas), both of which had operated without an established MOP since 2002.2 It\nfurther alleged that although WTG performed hydrostatic tests on six segments by 2018, four\nsegments remained untested at the time of the PHMSA investigation.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. § 195.406(a) by failing to establish\nMOP on its pipeline.\n2 In 2005, WTG established MOP via pressure testing on five segments of the line and provided these records to\nPHMSA during its investigation. Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), at 5 (Oct. 24, 2019) (on file\nwith PHMSA). In its Response, WTG stated that it believed pressure testing was performed by a previous operator\nin 1998, but could not find these records. Response, at 2-3.\n3 In its Response, the company noted that one of these four segments was tested in 2019 and that it planned to test the\nremaining three segments in 2020, 2021, and 2022. Response, at 2-3.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-5019\nPage 3\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken 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\nrelated series of violations.4 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; any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil\npenalty of $64,600 for the violation cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $64,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.406(a) for failing to establish MOP on its pipeline. In its Response, WTG presented\nseveral arguments for a reduction in the civil penalty. I will address each one separately below.\nFirst, WTG contends that the nature of the violation should be changed to a record-keeping\nviolation rather than an “activity” violation under Part E4 of the Violation Report. WTG states\nthat it believes pressure testing was performed in 1998 by a previous operator, but that it is\n“unable to locate and was unable to produce these specific records during the course of the\ninvestigation” but “believes that these records did exist.”5 Although the company could have\ncorroborated its claim that pressure testing was performed by producing testing records,\naffidavits, or other evidence showing that the testing activity actually occurred, it did not do so.\nTherefore, the record contains nothing more than a mere unsupported statement and an\nadmission by WTG that the records could not be located.6 Therefore, I see no reason to find that\nthe violation was merely a record-keeping, rather than a substantive, violation.\nSecond, WTG argues that the number of instances of violation under the “gravity” criterion in\nPart E6 of the Violation Report should be reduced from two to one because “the WTG pipeline\nsystem is one system” and the two releases occurred on the same Colorado City to Abilene\nsegment, and therefore consisted of only one violation. The company contends that even though\nthe two releases were reported separately under two different National Response Center reports,\nthey both related to a single failure to establish MOP pursuant to § 195.406(a).\n4 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.\n5 Response, at 3.\n6 See In re: Kinder Morgan Liquid Terminals, LLC, CPF No. 1-2018-5005, Final Order, at 4 (Mar. 8, 2019) (finding\nthat the violation was an activity violation, rather than a records violation, because the record contains “nothing more\nthan a mere unsupported statement that the required inspections and calculations were performed, and an admission\nthat the records do not exist”).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-5019\nPage 4\nI disagree. Contrary to WTG’s description of its pipeline as a single system, there were actually\n10 instances of violation because WTG operated ten different segments of its pipeline system\nwithout establishing the MOP for each one.7 Although five were tested in 2018, the fact remains\nthat all ten were operational for years without any evidence, such as MOP test records, to\ndemonstrate that MOP was properly established under § 195.406(a). Despite this, I will not\nincrease the number of instances of violation to ten, nor will I lower it to one.\nThird, WTG requests a reduction in the “culpability” assessment factor under Part E7 of the\nViolation Report. Specifically, the company contends that the culpability factor should be\nchanged from “the operator failed to comply with a requirement that was clearly applicable” to\n“after the operator found the noncompliance, the operator took documented action to address the\ncause of the noncompliance, and was in the process of correcting the noncompliance before\nPHMSA learned of the violation.” However, the penalty criteria under Part E7 contain the\nexception that the lower culpability level “[d]oes not apply to operator post-accident/incident\nenforcement actions.”8 Although WTG was in the process of hydrotesting its line when the\nreportable accidents occurred, the culpability factor cannot be lowered because there is no\nevidence to suggest that WTG undertook the pressure testing that was ongoing when the two\nreleases occurred in order to correct the non-compliance. Therefore, the company’s post-release\nactions do not serve to reduce the culpability factor.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $64,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a).\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.\nThe Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $64,600 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\n7 Under § 195.406, MOP is established per segment, not per “system.”\n8 Violation Report, at 11.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-5019\nPage 5\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the\nauthority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the\nfollowing actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its\noperations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.406(a) (Item 1), Respondent must submit\noperating pressure recording charts or logs to verify the MOP per § 195.406(a)(5), or\nperform a pressure test per the requirements of §195.406(a)(3) to establish an MOP of\nits WTG # 1 (Colorado City to Wortham, Texas) and WTG # 2 (Wortham to\nNederland, Texas) pipelines. WTG shall develop and provide the Director with the\ndetailed process and schedule by which it will complete hydrostatic pressure testing\nof all remaining pipeline segments no later than the end of calendar year 2020.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the\nDirector. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated\nwith preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated\nwith replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\neach day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and\nmeet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays\nthe payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective\naction, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nJuly 27, 2020\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":27290}