{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 42024020NOPV","title":"SUMMIT MIDSTREAM PERMIAN 2 LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2024-11-19","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.303.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42024020nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42024020nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42024020nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/42024020NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SUMMIT MIDSTREAM PERMIAN 2 LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.303. The case was opened on 2024-11-19 and is reported as closed as of 2025-10-16. Proposed civil penalty: $66,900. Assessed civil penalty: $0. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n42024020NOPV_Final Order_10162025_(21-207841).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024020NOPV/42024020NOPV_Final%20Order_10162025_(21-207841).pdf\n\n42024020NOPV_Final Order_10162025_(21-207841)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024020NOPV/42024020NOPV_Final%20Order_10162025_(21-207841)_text.pdf\n\n42024020NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_12172024_(21-207841).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024020NOPV/42024020NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_12172024_(21-207841).pdf\n\n42024020NOPV_PCP PCO_11192024_(21-207841).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024020NOPV/42024020NOPV_PCP%20PCO_11192024_(21-207841).pdf\n\n42024020NOPV_PCP PCO_11192024_(21-207841)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024020NOPV/42024020NOPV_PCP%20PCO_11192024_(21-207841)_text.pdf\n\n42024020NOPV_Final Order_10162025_(21-207841)_text.pdf\n\nOctober 16, 2025\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: hugo.guerrero@summitmidstream.com\nHugo Guerrero\nSenior Vice President – Operations\nSummit Midstream Permian 2, LLC\n910 Louisiana Street, Suite 4200\nHouston, Texas 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2024-020-NOPV\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the\nallegations of violation in the Notice of Probable Violation issued on November 19, 2024.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed. Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the\ndate of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt as provided under 49 CFR § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nLinda Daugherty\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Bryan Lethcoe, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nReagan T. Nguyen, Senior Director of Safety, Asset Integrity and Compliance, Summit\nMidstream Corporation, rnguyen@summitmidstream.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 )\nSummit Midstream Permian 2, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2024-020-NOPV\na subsidiary of Summit Midstream Corp., )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n_____________________________________ )\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom March 2021 through February 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 Summit\nMidstream Permian 2, LLC’s (Summit or Respondent) Double E pipeline construction project\nspanning from Eddy County, New Mexico through Loving County, Ward County, and Reeves\nCounty, Texas.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated November 19, 2024, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that Summit had committed two violations of 49 CFR Part 192 and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $66,900 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nSummit responded to the Notice by letter dated December 17, 2024 (Response). Summit\ncontested both allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and\nrequested that the matter be closed. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has\nwaived its right to one.\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATIONS\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 192.303, which states:\n\n\n\n§ 192.303 Compliance with specifications or standards.\nEach transmission line or main must be constructed in accordance with\ncomprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with\nthis part.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 192.303 by failing to construct its Double\nE pipeline system in accordance with comprehensive written specifications or standards that are\nconsistent with part 192. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Summit failed to follow its written\nspecification, Double E Pipeline Project Hydrostatic Test Plan, revised June 10, 2021,\n(Hydrotest Plan) when conducting hydrostatic tests of pipeline sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. The\nNotice alleged that Summit’s construction records demonstrated that the dead weight testers,\npressure test recorders, and temperature recorders used for the hydrotests of those pipeline\nsections were not calibrated to the accuracy ranges specified in the Hydrotest Plan. It further\nalleged that when the PHMSA inspector discussed the matter with Summit during the inspection,\nSummit modified the Hydrotest Plan to be consistent with the calibrations used for the tests and\nto allow for a less accurate calibration range going forward.\nIn its Response, Summit agreed that the test records inspected were inconsistent with the\nHydrotest Plan and that Summit updated the Hydrotest Plan as result of the inspection. Summit\ncontended, however, that the calibration accuracy of the equipment used for the hydrotests cited\nby PHMSA did not provide a material difference in the pressure test results. Summit also noted\nthat 49 CFR Part 192, Subpart J does not establish specific calibration requirements and that the\ntesting conducted was consistent with the Subpart J requirements.\nAfter considering all of the evidence and circumstances of this case, I hereby withdraw the\nalleged violation 49 CFR § 192.303 without prejudice, as a matter of administrative discretion.\nThe decision to exercise enforcement discretion in this matter is specific to the facts of this\nspecific enforcement matter and circumstances.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 192.303, which states:\n§ 192.303 Compliance with specifications or standards.\nEach transmission line or main must be constructed in accordance with\ncomprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with\nthis part.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 192.303 by failing to construct its Double\nE pipeline system in accordance with comprehensive written specifications or standards that are\nconsistent with part 192. Specifically, the Notice alleged that when conducting the hydrostatic\npressure test of pipeline section 7, Summit failed to follow the Hydrotest Plan by using\nequipment that had serial numbers that differed from the serial numbers listed in the plan.\nFurther, the Notice alleged that when the PHMSA inspector discussed the matter with Summit\nduring the inspection, Summit revised the Hydrotest Plan to be consistent with the equipment\nthat was used.\nIn its Response, Summit stated that it appreciated the apparent discrepancy in equipment.\n\n\n\nSummit noted, however, the equipment that was used had been calibrated and the discrepancy\nprovided no material safety impact since the testing was conducted in accordance with the\nSubpart J requirements.\nAfter considering all of the evidence and circumstances of this case, I hereby withdraw the\nalleged violation 49 CFR § 192.303, without prejudice, as a matter of administrative discretion.\nThe decision to exercise enforcement discretion in this matter is specific to the facts of this\nspecific enforcement matter and circumstances.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty exceeding\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, with a maximum administrative civil\npenalty exceeding $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.1\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 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.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $66,900 for the violations cited above. Effective\nMay 20, 2025, PHMSA revised its proposed civil penalty calculation policy to use the version of\nthe Civil Penalty Worksheet in effect when the alleged violation occurred. The new policy\nreduces the total proposed civil penalty in this case to $62,100.2\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $44,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 CFR\n§ 192.303, for failing to construct its Double E pipeline system in accordance with its\ncomprehensive written specifications as required. The new policy for calculating a proposed civil\npenalty reduces the proposed civil penalty for this item to $41,400. Since this alleged violation\nhas been withdrawn, the proposed penalty is not assessed.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $22,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49 CFR\n§ 192.303, for failing to construct its Double E pipeline system in accordance with its\ncomprehensive written specifications as required. The new policy for calculating a proposed civil\npenalty reduces the proposed civil penalty for this item to $20,700. Since this alleged violation\nhas been withdrawn, the proposed penalty is not assessed.\n1 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 CFR § 190.223 for adjusted amounts.\n2 The Director, Southwest Region, notified Summit of PHMSA’s revised policy and the reduction of the proposed\npenalty via letter dated July 29, 2025.\n\n\n\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for violation of 49\nCFR § 192.303. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of\ngas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under chapter 601. As discussed above, Item 1 has been withdrawn.\nTherefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for that Item are not included in this\nOrder.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nCFR § 190.5.\n_________________________________ __________________________\nLinda Daugherty Date Issued\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":11076}