{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 42023010NOPV","title":"SHELL PIPELINE CO., L.P. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2023-06-02","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.420(b), 195.428(a), 195.505(b), 195.573(e).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42023010nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42023010nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42023010nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/42023010NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SHELL PIPELINE CO., L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.420(b),  195.428(a),  195.505(b),  195.573(e). The case was opened on 2023-06-02 and is reported as closed as of 2025-05-15. Proposed civil penalty: $176,000. Assessed civil penalty: $169,700. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n42023010NOPV_Closure Letter_05152025_(22-232749).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023010NOPV/42023010NOPV_Closure%20Letter_05152025_(22-232749).pdf\n\n42023010NOPV_Closure Letter_05152025_(22-232749)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023010NOPV/42023010NOPV_Closure%20Letter_05152025_(22-232749)_text.pdf\n\n42023010NOPV_Final Order_09112024_(22-232749).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023010NOPV/42023010NOPV_Final%20Order_09112024_(22-232749).pdf\n\n42023010NOPV_Final Order_09112024_(22-232749)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023010NOPV/42023010NOPV_Final%20Order_09112024_(22-232749)_text.pdf\n\n42023010NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_06302023_(22-232749).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023010NOPV/42023010NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_06302023_(22-232749).pdf\n\n42023010NOPV_PCP PCO_06022023_(22-232749).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023010NOPV/42023010NOPV_PCP%20PCO_06022023_(22-232749).pdf\n\n42023010NOPV_PCP PCO_06022023_(22-232749)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023010NOPV/42023010NOPV_PCP%20PCO_06022023_(22-232749)_text.pdf\n\n42023010NOPV_Closure Letter_05152025_(22-232749)_text.pdf\n\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: sean.guillory@shell.com\nMay 15, 2025\nMr. Sean Guillory\nGeneral Manager, US Midstream\nShell Pipeline Co., LP\n150 North Dairy Ashford, Building A, Fourth Floor\nHouston, TX 77079\nRE: CPF 4-2023-010-NOPV\nDear Mr. Guillory:\nFrom May through November 22, 2022, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49\nUnited States Code (U.S.C.) inspected Shell Pipeline Company, LP’s (Shell) hazardous liquid\npipeline systems in Texas, Louisiana, and the Gulf of Mexico. As a result of the inspection, ETC\nShell was issued a Notice of Probable Violation (NOPV) of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title\n49, Code of Federal Regulations in the above-referenced case.\nOn September 11, 2024, PHMSA issued a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order\nincluded a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty. Based on our review of the documentation you\nprovided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that Shell has\ncomplied with the terms of this 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: Ms. Deborah Price, Integrity & Regulatory Services Manager, Shell Pipeline Co., LP,\ndeborah.price@shell.com\n\n42023010NOPV_Final Order_09112024_(22-232749)_text.pdf\n\nSeptember 11, 2024\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: wael.sawan@shell.com\nWael Sawan\nChief Executive Officer\nShell Pipeline Company LP\nWCK Building A\n150 North Dairy Ashford Road\nHouston, Texas 77079\nRe: CPF No. 4-2023-010-NOPV\nDear Mr. Sawan:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $169,700, and specifies actions that need to be\ntaken by Shell Pipeline Company LP, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The\npenalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and\nthe terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region,\nthis enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the\ndate of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Bryan Lethcoe, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Sean Guillory, President, Shell Pipeline Company LP, sean.guillory@shell.com\nMs. Deborah Price, Integrity & Regulatory Services Manager, Shell Pipeline Company LP,\ndeborah.price@shell.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\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nShell Pipeline Company LP, ) CPF No. 4-2023-010-NOPV\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom May 9 through November 22, 2022, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Shell\nPipeline Company LP’s (Shell or Respondent) hazardous liquid pipeline systems in Texas,\nLouisiana, and the Gulf of Mexico.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated June 2, 2023, 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 Shell had committed three violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195,\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $176,000 for the alleged violations, and proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also included\nan additional warning item pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, which warned the operator to\ncorrect the probable violation or face possible future enforcement action.\nShell responded to the Notice by letter dated June 30, 2023 (Response). Shell responded to all\nallegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, requested that the proposed\ncivil penalty be reconsidered, and that the proposed compliance order be withdrawn. Respondent\ndid not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b), which states:\n§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(a) …\n(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at\n\n\n\nleast twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that\nit is functioning properly.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) by failing on 56 separate\ninstances to inspect 35 mainline valves at the required intervals during the calendar years of 2020\nthrough and including 2022.\nIn its Response, Shell admitted it had documentation issues regarding its mainline valve\ninspections from 2020 through 2022, but stated that all required inspections did occur in\naccordance with § 195.420(b). Shell explained that it transitioned to a new data management\nsystem to track inspection and maintenance tasks in 2020 and implemented that system in the\nfield in 2022.\n1 However, Shell acknowledged that that there were technical difficulties\nproviding records from the new system during PHMSA’s inspection.2 Shell provided multiple\nscreenshots from its new system as proof the inspections had occurred as required as part of its\nResponse, and detailed the steps it has taken to remedy its technical issues since the PHMSA\ninspection.\n3 Shell requested that the violation and civil penalty be reevaluated based on the\nscreenshots and explanation provided within its Response.\nPHMSA has stated in prior enforcement matters that every, “Respondent is responsible for\ncompliance with the pipeline safety regulations, which includes sound record keeping. Without\nthis history, an operator will have difficulty determining areas where there are problems that\nneed to be addressed.”4 While Shell has provided an explanation for the missing records at the\ntime of the inspection, as well as additional documentation, a review of that documentation\nreveals that its records are still incomplete.\nWhile Attachment 1 does provide some clarity, there are still multiple instances where the\ninspection history is either incomplete or the interval between inspections is greater than what is\nallowed by the pipeline safety regulations. First, there are no records of inspection for valve\nnumber 2044008 included in the Response. Additionally, the screenshots provided in the\nResponse indicate only one inspection of the mainline valve occurred in 2020 for valve numbers\n2042012, 2064000, 2064002, 2064009, 2144098, 2131321, 1000356, 1032009, 2404338,\n2404340, 2406171, 3217501, and 3217508.5 Attachment 1 further indicates a missing or late\ninspection in 2022 for valve number 2336005.\n6 Moreover, Attachment 1 indicates that valve\nnumbers 1002011 and 1002013 each had inspections occur at intervals greater than 7½ months,\nwith an inspections occurring on April 28, 2021, January 6, 2022, and October 27, 2022.\n7\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n1 Response, at 1-2.\n2 Response, at 2.\n3 Id.\n4 In the Matter of Ozark Gas Transmission, Final Order 2-2002-1004, 2003 WL 26473449 at *2 (April 29, 2003).\n5 Respondent’s Attachment 1, at 2, 4-10, 29, 31, 37, 44-45.\n6 Respondent’s Attachment 1, at 12.\n7 Respondent’s Attachment 1, at 20-21.\n\n\n\n§ 195.420(b) by failing to inspect its mainline valves at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but\nat least twice each calendar year to determine that it is functioning properly, as required.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:\n§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator\nshall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at\nintervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year,\ninspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure\nregulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it is\nfunctioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from\nthe standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service for\nwhich it is used.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test\neach pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control\nequipment as required. Specifically, the Notice alleged from 2020 to 2022, Shell failed to\ninspect seven overpressure safety devices once a calendar year at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths on 11 instances. Additionally, the Notice alleged that from 2020 to 2022, Shell failed to\ninspect seven overpressure safety devices twice a calendar year at intervals not exceeding 7½\nmonths on a highly volatile liquid system on 14 instances.\nIn its Response, Shell admitted it had documentation issues with regards to its overpressure\ndevice inspections, but stated it had conducted the inspections at the appropriate intervals in\naccordance with the code.\n8 Shell explained that the issue with documentation was the same as it\ndescribed for Item 1 and provided screenshots from its data management program as proof it had\nconducted the required inspections as part of its Response. A review of Respondent’s\nAttachment 2 confirms that all of the inspections on the Crude System Valve Equipment\nreferenced in the Notice were conducted at the appropriate intervals. However, the\ndocumentation is still incomplete regarding the Highly Volatile Liquid System Valve Equipment\nreferenced in the Notice.\nA review of Attachment 2 indicates that only one inspection, instead of the required two,\noccurred in 2020 on overpressure safety device numbers 1025341, 2194027, 1025340, 3207629,\nand 1009765.9 Additionally, the screenshots provided are missing relevant information for some\nof the inspections, including who conducted the inspection and what the results of the inspection\nwere, in regards to inspections conducted on overpressure safety device numbers 2194024,\n1025341, 2194025, 1025340, 3207629, and 1009765.10\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.428(a) by failing to inspect overpressure safety devices twice a calendar year at intervals\n8 Response, at 3.\n9 Respondent’s Attachment 2, at 12, 14, 18, 20 and 22.\n10 Respondent’s Attachment 2, at 11, 13, 16, 19, 21 and 23.\n\n\n\nnot exceeding 7½ months on a highly volatile liquid system as required.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b), which states:\n§ 195.505 Qualification program.\n(a) …\nare qualified;\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b) by failing to follow its\nwritten qualification program to confirm through evaluation that all individuals performing\ncovered tasks are qualified as required. Specifically, the Notice alleged that an unqualified\nemployee performed 37 valve inspections, which is a covered tasked, from December 2020 to\nJuly 2022, without supervision of a qualified inspector.\nIn its Response, Shell did not contest the violation. Shell acknowledged that the employee in\nquestion performed valve inspections without being qualified and stated that they were qualified\nthe day after the discrepancy was discovered.11 Shell further stated that it had conducted a full\nreview of all other employee task lists and did not find any similar discrepancies and that it had\nimplemented a system to prevent similar occurrences in the future.12\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.505(b) by failing to ensure that all individuals performing covered tasks are qualified.\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\nrelated series of violations.13\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I\nmust consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue\ndoing business; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to discovery by PHMSA.\nIn addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction\nbecause of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice\n11 Response, at 3.\n12 Id.\n13 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223 for adjusted amounts.\n\n\n\nproposed a total civil penalty of $176,000 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $62,900 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.420(b), for failing to inspect its mainline valves at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but\nat least twice each calendar year to determine that it is functioning properly, as required. As\ndiscussed above, in its Response, Shell stated that it had conducted the mainline valve\ninspections at the required intervals but could not provide documentation of each inspection at\nthe time of PHMSA’s inspection. Shell’s Response further described its record keeping process,\nprovided evidence of the completed inspections, and asked that the civil penalty be reconsidered\nbased on its explanation and additional documentation. However, after reviewing all of the\ninformation provided in the Response, I found that a violation still exists. This is because the\nrecords are incomplete as to whether several inspections occurred and, in some cases, the records\nindicate the inspections of mainline valves occurred at an interval that exceeds 7½ months.\nWithout a record of each inspection being completed, I cannot determine if the inspection had\noccurred and, if it had occurred, if the inspection was timely. Therefore, I find that this Item was\nappropriately assessed as an activities violation. Also, per the Region Recommendation, the\nproposed civil penalty assessed three instances, one for each calendar year of 2020, 2021, and\n2022.\n14 As I noted, at least one instance of violation in each of those calendar years. I,\ntherefore, do not find a basis to decrease the number of instances for this Item. Additionally, as\nsome of the valves are located in a high consequence area, I find that the gravity was\nappropriately assessed, as were the other civil penalty factors. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $62,900 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $62,900 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.428(a), for failing to inspect overpressure safety devices twice a calendar year at intervals\nnot exceeding 7½ months on a highly volatile liquid system as required. As described above,\nsimilar to Item 1, in its Response, Shell maintained it had conducted all required inspections but\nhad documentation issues at the time of the PHMSA inspection. Shell described its record\nkeeping process, provided evidence of completed inspections, and asked for the violation and\ncivil penalty to be reconsidered based on its explanation and documentation. However, after\nreviewing all of the information provided, I found that a violation still exists. This is because the\nrecords were incomplete as to whether several inspections had occurred. Additionally, some of\nthe records lacked the necessary information to determine who had conducted the inspection and\nwhat that inspector observed. As stated above, without a proper record of the inspection being\ncompleted, I cannot determine if the inspection occurred and, if it had occurred, if the inspection\nwas timely. Therefore, I find that this Item was appropriately assessed as an activities violation.\nAlso, per the Region Recommendation, the proposed civil penalty assessed three instances, one\nfor each calendar year of 2020, 2021, and 2022.15 Upon review of the documents provided by\nRespondent, however, I find the instances of violation only occurred in the calendar years of\n2020 and 2021 for this Item. Therefore, I find that the number of instances should be assessed at\ntwo instead of three. As some of the valves are located in a high consequence area, I find that\nthe gravity was appropriately assessed, as were the other civil penalty factors. Accordingly,\nhaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a\n14 Region Recommendation, at footnote 1.\n15 Region Recommendation, at footnote 3.\n\n\n\nreduced civil penalty of $56,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a).\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $50,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.505(b), for failing to ensure that all individuals performing covered tasks are qualified. In\nits Response, Shell acknowledged the individual had been performing inspections without being\nqualified, described the actions it took to both qualify that individual and safeguard that the\nviolation would not happen again, and asked that because it was a first-time offense and there\nwas no risk to pipeline safety, that the civil penalty be reduced. While the individual in question\nwas qualified for the task the day after the discrepancy was discovered, as some of the valves\nthey had inspected while not being properly qualified for the task were located a high\nconsequence area, so the gravity was properly assessed. Additionally, while the steps Shell has\ntaken to prevent this event from occurring in the future are commendable, that is not a basis to\nreduce a civil penalty because the corrective action occurred after PHMSA discovered the\nviolation occurred.\n16 Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $50,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b).\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 $169,700.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days after receipt of this Final Order.\nFederal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer\nthrough the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S.\nTreasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire\ntransfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation\nAdministration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City,\nOklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in\naccordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those\nsame authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment\nis not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result\nin referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district court of the\nUnited States.\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. §§ 195.420(b) and 195.428(a) respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a),\neach person 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.\n16 See In the Matter of Oasis Midstream Partners LP, a General Partner of Oasis Petroleum Inc., Final Order 3-\n2019-5020, 2020 WL 6870720 at 7 (August 19, 2020) (“While Oasis is to be commended for improving its internal\nprocesses to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations, such post-inspection activities do not warrant\nthe withdrawal of, or a reduction in, a proposed civil penalty.”)\n\n\n\nWith regard to the violation of § 195.420(b) (Item 1), Respondent argued it had conducted the\nmainline valve inspections as required per the pipeline safety regulations and provided additional\ndocumentation as proof. However, as stated above, the documentation provided was incomplete\nto determine whether all necessary inspections were conducted at the required intervals.\nHowever, Attachment 1 did provide evidence that inspections of mainline valve numbers\n1020307, 1020305, 1020326, 1009628, 1012904, 1014255, 1014256, 1024300, 1024301,\n2130495, 2404992, 2404993, 2404994, 2405001, 2405003, 2410000, 2410002, 2410004,\n2410015, and 2410020 had occurred in a timely manner. Therefore, the compliance order will\nbe modified to only include the mainline valves not listed above.\nWith regard to the violation of § 195.428(a) (Item 2), Respondent argued it had conducted the\noverpressure safety device inspections as required per the pipeline safety regulations and\nprovided additional documentation as proof. However, as stated above, the documentation\nprovided was incomplete to determine whether all necessary inspections were conducted at the\nrequired intervals. However, Attachment 2 did provide evidence that inspections of overpressure\nsafety device numbers 1019997, 1019998, 2131376, 1029264, 1029259, 1012490, and 1012491\nhad occurred in a timely manner. Therefore, the compliance order will be modified to only\ninclude the overpressure safety devices not listed above.\nFor the above reasons, the Compliance Order is modified as set forth below.\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is\nordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations\napplicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.420(b) (Item 1), Respondent must inspect\nmainline valve numbers 2044008, 2042012, 2064000, 2064002, 2064009, 2144098,\n2131321, 1000356, 1032009, 2404338, 2404340, 2406171, 3217501, 3217508,\n2336005, 1002011, and 1002013, maintain inspection records as required by its\nprocedure, and provide the mainline valve inspection records to the Director,\nSouthwest Region within 90 days of issuance of the Final Order.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.428(a) (Item 2), Respondent must inspect\nand test overpressure safety device numbers 2194024, 1025341, 2194027, 2194025,\n1025340, 3207629, 1009765, maintain the inspection records as required by its\nprocedure, and provide the overpressure safety device inspection records to the\nDirector, Southwest Region within 90 days of issuance of the Final Order.\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.\nPHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n\n\n\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (see 49 C.F.R. § 190.223 for adjusted amounts),\nfor each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for\nappropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 4, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 195, but identified it as a\nwarning item pursuant to § 190.205. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.573(e) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to correct\nidentified annual cathodic protection deficiencies on its Ship Shoal 22 Loop at\nMP 7.5 within a reasonable time, as required.\nShell acknowledged the deficiencies were not corrected in a reasonable time in its Response and\nstated the issue has since been remedied. Under § 190.205, PHMSA does not adjudicate warning\nitems to determine whether a probable violation occurred. If OPS finds a violation of this\nprovision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\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. The written petition must be received no later than\n20 days after receipt of the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a\nstatement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a\npetition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the\norder, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon\nrequest, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nSeptember 11, 2024\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":28359}