{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 42024037NOPV","title":"TRANSWESTERN PIPELINE COMPANY LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":"2024-10-04","effective_on":null,"summary":"OPEN notice of probable violation citing 191.5(a), 192.467(b), 192.479(a), 192.481(a), 192.481(b), 192.605(a), 192.605(b)(8), 192.736(a), 192.736(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42024037nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42024037nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42024037nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/42024037NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TRANSWESTERN PIPELINE COMPANY LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 191.5(a),  192.467(b),  192.479(a),  192.481(a),  192.481(b),  192.605(a),  192.605(b)(8),  192.736(a),  192.736(b). The case was opened on 2024-10-04 and is reported as open. Proposed civil penalty: $176,700. Assessed civil penalty: $116,100. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n42024037NOPV_Final Order_04072026_(23-267490).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024037NOPV/42024037NOPV_Final%20Order_04072026_(23-267490).pdf\n\n42024037NOPV_Final Order_04072026_(23-267490)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024037NOPV/42024037NOPV_Final%20Order_04072026_(23-267490)_text.pdf\n\n42024037NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_01092025_(23-267490).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024037NOPV/42024037NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_01092025_(23-267490).pdf\n\n42024037NOPV_PCP PCO_10042024_(23-267490).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024037NOPV/42024037NOPV_PCP%20PCO_10042024_(23-267490).pdf\n\n42024037NOPV_PCP PCO_10042024_(23-267490)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024037NOPV/42024037NOPV_PCP%20PCO_10042024_(23-267490)_text.pdf\n\n42024037NOPV_Final Order_04072026_(23-267490)_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nApril 7, 2026\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tom.long@energytransfer.com\nThomas Long\nChief Executive Officer\nEnergy Transfer, LP\n8111 Westchester Drive\nDallas, Texas 75225\nRe: CPF No. 4-2024-037-NOPV\nDear Mr. Long:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws two of the\nallegations of violation, makes other findings of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $116,100,\nand specifies actions that need to be taken by Energy Transfer, LP, to comply with the pipeline\nsafety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil\npenalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the\nDirector, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order\nby e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt as provided\nunder 49 CFR § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nLinda Daugherty\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Bryan Jeffrey Lethcoe, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nGreg McIlwain, Executive Vice President, Operations, Energy Transfer LP,\ngreg.mcilwain@energytransfer.com\nEric Amundsen, Senior Vice President, Operations, Energy Transfer LP,\nEric.Amundsen@energytransfer.com\n\n\n\nTodd Stamm, Senior Vice President, Operations, Energy Transfer LP,\ntodd.stamm@energytransfer.com\nJennifer Street, Senior Vice President, Operations Services, Energy Transfer LP,\njennifer.street@energytransfer.com\nKeegan Pieper, Assistant General Counsel, Energy Transfer LP,\nkeegan.pieper@energytransfer.com\nMatthew Stork, Vice President, Technical Services, Energy Transfer LP,\nmatthew.stork@energytransfer.com\nTodd Nardozzi, Director – DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer LP,\ntodd.nardozzi@energytransfer.com\nSusie Sjulin, Director – DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer LP,\nsusie.sjulin@energytransfer.com\nCONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED\n2\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 )\nTranswestern Pipeline Company, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2024-037-NOPV\na subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom April 11 through September 29, 2023, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code\n(U.S.C.), a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), inspected Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC’s\n(Transwestern) interstate natural gas transmission pipeline in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico,\nand Texas. Transwestern is a subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP (Energy Transfer or\nRespondent).1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to Energy\nTransfer, by letter dated October 4, 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 Energy Transfer committed one violation of 49 CFR Part 191 and\nfive violations of 49 CFR Part 192, proposed assessing a civil penalty of $176,700 for the alleged\nviolations, and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged\nviolations. The Notice also included an additional warning item pursuant to 49 CFR § 190.205,\nwhich warned Respondent to correct the probable violation or face possible future enforcement\naction.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Energy Transfer responded to the\nNotice by letter dated January 9, 2025 (Response). Respondent contested several of the\nallegations and offered additional information in response to the Notice. Respondent did not\nrequest a hearing and therefore waived its right to one.\nOn September 30, 2025, PHMSA informed Respondent of the agency’s revised enforcement\n1 See Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC, ENERGY TRANSFER, https://twtransfer.energytransfer.com/ipost/TW\n(last visited December 16, 2025).\n\n\n\n2\nprocedures pursuant to May 29, 2025, PHMSA Chief Counsel Memo,2 and afforded Energy\nTransfer the opportunity to request additional records in the agency’s possession. Respondent\nrequested these records on October 2, 2025. PHMSA provided them on October 6, 2025. Energy\nTransfer did not ask to revise its prior response following receipt of these records.\nEffective May 20, 2025, PHMSA revised its proposed civil penalty calculation policy.3 PHMSA\nnow uses the version of the Civil Penalty Worksheet in effect on the date when the alleged\nviolation ended or the last date of the onsite inspection, whichever is earlier. For Item 1, the new\nproposed civil penalty calculation policy reduced the proposed civil penalty to $23,500.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Energy Transfer violated 49 CFR Parts 192, as follows:\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Energy Transfer violated 49 CFR § 192.481, which states:\n§ 192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each operator must inspect and evaluate each pipeline or portion of\nthe pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric\ncorrosion, as follows:\nPipeline type: Then the frequency of\ninspection is:\n(1) Onshore other than a\nService Line\nAt least once every 3\ncalendar years, but with\nintervals not exceeding 39\nmonths.\n(2) Onshore Service Line At least once every 5\ncalendar years, but with\nintervals not exceeding 63\nmonths, except as provided\nin paragraph (d) of this\nsection.\n(3) Offshore At least once each calendar\nyears, but with intervals not\nexceeding 15 months.\n2 Revised Procedures for Determining the Contents of the Case File in Pipeline Safety Enforcement Proceedings,\nPHMSA, May 29, 2025, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulatory-compliance/phmsa-guidance/revised-procedures-\ndetermining-contents-case-file-pipeline.\n3 Policy for Calculating Proposed Civil Penalties in Pipeline Safety Enforcement Proceedings, PHMSA, May 20,\n2025, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/news/phmsa-policy-calculating-proposed-civil-penalties-pipeline-safety-\nenforcement-proceedings.\n\n\n\n3\n(b) During inspections the operator must give particular attention to pipe\nat soil-to-air interfaces, under thermal insulation, under disbonded coatings,\nat pipe supports, in splash zones, at deck penetrations, and in spans over\nwater.\nThe Notice alleged that Energy Transfer violated 49 CFR § 192.481(a) and (b) by failing to\ninspect and evaluate each pipeline or portion of the pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for\nevidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once every three calendar years, but with intervals not\nexceeding 39 months, paying particular attention to pipe under thermal insulation. Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that Energy Transfer did not provide documentation showing that the pipe at\nthe Atoka 2 Compressor Station had been inspected under its thermal insulation in 2018 and\n2021.4\nDuring the PHMSA field inspection at Atoka 2 Compressor Station, the PHMSA Inspector\nnoticed the discharge piping coming from Unit 837 was thermally insulated without inspection\nports. When the PHMSA Inspector asked how Transwestern inspects the pipeline under thermal\ninsulation for atmospheric corrosion, field personnel stated that the insulation is not removed to\ninspect the condition of the pipe. Rather, the field personnel explained that the condition of the\npipe under the thermal insulation is determined at the exposed elbow. The exposed elbow has\napproximately three feet of exposed pipe before going underground. After this discussion,\nTranswestern conducted an atmospheric inspection on Unit 837’s discharge piping. A copy of\nthe inspection form from this inspection was provided to PHMSA.\nIn its Response, Energy Transfer contests the allegation of inadequacy. Energy Transfer notes\nthat it conducted an atmospheric inspection on Unit 837’s discharge piping in 2023. In addition,\nEnergy Transfer states that it permanently removed the insulation at the Atoka 2 Compressor\nStation and painted all associated piping. The Response included an atmospheric inspection\nreport for 2024 and photos of the associated piping.\nEnergy Transfer’s actions are insufficient to demonstrate compliance with § 192.481(a) and (b).\nEnergy Transfer’s Response focused on 2023 and thereafter. However, the allegation of violation\nconcerned its failure to inspect under the thermal insulation at the Atoka 2 Compressor station in\n2018 and 2021. Respondent provided no documentation showing that the pipe under the thermal\ninsulation was inspected in 2018 and 2021.5\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR\n§ 192.481(a) and (b) by failing to inspect and evaluate each pipeline or portion of the pipeline\nthat is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once every three\n4 Energy Transfer’s procedure, Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), Atmospheric Corrosion Inspection (Rev.\nJune 30, 2023), section 7.1, Coating Inspection, requires inspection under pipe insulation. If removal of insulation is\nimpractical, proven and accepted methods to inspect under the insulation must be used.\n5 Pursuant to § 192.491(c), Energy Transfer had to retain a record “of each test, survey, or inspection required by\n[Subpart I] in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measure or that a corrosive\ncondition does not exist” for at least five years. Therefore, Energy Transfer was required to maintain a record\nshowing the pipe under the thermal insulation was inspected in 2021. Per the Violation Report associated with this\nItem, Energy Transfer was cited for one instance of violation for its non-compliance in 2021.\n\n\n\n4\ncalendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months, paying particular attention to pipe\nunder thermal insulation.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 192.605, which states:\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a\nmanual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance\nactivities for emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual must\nalso include procedures for handling abnormal operations. This manual\nmust be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year. This manual must be prepared\nbefore operations of a pipeline system commence. Appropriate parts of the\nmanual must be kept at locations where operations and maintenance\nactivities are conducted.\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following, if\napplicable, to provide safety during maintenance and operations.\n(1)….\n(8) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to\ndetermine the effectiveness, and adequacy of the procedures used in normal\noperation and maintenance and modifying the procedures when deficiencies\nare found.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 192.605(a)(8) by failing to follow its\nmanual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities for\nemergency response. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Transwestern failed to periodically\nreview the work done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness and adequacy of the\nprocedures used in normal operation and maintenance, and modify the procedures when\ndeficiencies are found in accordance with § 192.605(a)(8), per section 4.0 of Transwestern’s\nprocedure, Guiding Principles for Standard Operating Procedures, A-HLA.02 (effective Sept. 1,\n2023).\nIn its Response, Energy Transfer contests the allegation. Respondent argues that its work review\nprocess satisfies the requirements of § 192.605(a)(8).\nFirst, Energy Transfer argues that its annual review of “all standard operating and maintenance\nprocedures for technical effectiveness and regulatory completeness to current rule making”\nsatisfies the regulatory requirement. Energy Transfer also states that its procedures direct all\ncompany employees, in the performance of their daily tasks, to review their work to determine\nthe effectiveness of the applicable procedures and to initiate a change if required.\nThe annual review referenced by Energy Transfer does not comply with the requirements of §\n192.605(a)(8). The process described does not entail a review of the work done by operator\npersonnel to determine the effectiveness and adequacy of the procedures used in normal\noperation and maintenance, and modifying the procedures when deficiencies are found. Rather,\n\n\n\n5\nthe process entails a review of standard operating and maintenance procedures. Nor does the ad\nhoc employee-initiated review of their own work satisfy the regulatory requirement, which\ndirects the operator to periodically review the work done by its personnel to determine the\neffectiveness and adequacy of its procedures.\nSecond, Energy Transfer argues its annual work history review (AWHR) between supervisors\nand employees covering the tasks that the employee performed over the past 12 months meets\nthe regulatory requirement. It does not. The process described in the Response entails an\nevaluation of the tasks an individual employee performed in the past year. The example Skill\nEvaluation Record provided with the Response identifies specific skills necessary to perform\ncovered tasks. The example AWHR provided in the Response reflects that an individual\nemployee’s covered tasks are identified and that a review is done for the purpose of\n“determin[ing] whether the individual has knowledge and skills required to continue to perform\nthese tasks.” Thus, the AWHRs are reviews performed for the purpose of evaluating an\nindividual’s knowledge and ability to perform a covered task. They are not operator reviews of\nwork done by operator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal\noperation and maintenance and they do not document taking corrective action where deficiencies\nare found as a result of that review.\nThird, Energy Transfer argues its Subject Matter Expert (SME) observation of individuals\nperforming covered tasks satisfies the regulatory requirements of § 192.605(a)(8). It does not.\nObserving employees perform covered tasks on an ad hoc basis and noting inadequacies or\ndeficiencies in their work does not describe a periodic review of work done by operator\npersonnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and\nmaintenance.\nFourth, Energy Transfer argues its Quality Job Reviews (QJR), which involve observing\nemployees conducting their work and documenting observations, meets the requirements of\n§ 192.605(a)(8). Once again, it does not. Energy Transfer’s QJRs, as described, are focused on\nreviewing the job performance of individual employees. Per the Response, they may involve\n“acknowledgement and recognition to the work team on a job well done, identification of an\nupdate to a procedure, the need for additional training or other areas for improvement.” This\ndoes not describe a process of periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to\ndetermine the effectiveness and adequacy of the procedures used in normal operation and\nmaintenance and modifying the procedures when deficiencies are found.6\nIn sum, no part of Energy Transfer’s work review process satisfies the requirements of\n§ 192.605(a)(8).\nIn the alternative, Energy Transfer argues that the allegation should be withdrawn or placed in\nabeyance due to pending decisions in cases CPF 4-2023-011-NOPV against Panhandle Eastern\n6 Energy Transfer states that it included a QJR as Exhibit E6 in its response. However, Exhibit E6 is not included in\nthe list of exhibits following its argument for Item 5 (see Response page 13), it was not included among the\ndocuments provided to PHMSA, and PHMSA has no record of Energy Transfer providing an Exhibit E6 in this\ncase. Therefore, the agency cannot review it.\n\n\n\n6\nPipeline Company (Panhandle) and CPF 4-2024-027-NOPV against Sunoco Pipeline, L.P.\n(Sunoco), both of which are Energy Transfer subsidiaries. Energy Transfer asserts that issuing\nthe NOPV in this case while those cases are pending “lacks fundamental fairness” and\n“constitutes double jeopardy” because “PHMSA is bringing multiple NOPVs related to the same\nprocesses, procedures, and facts.” This argument is not persuasive.\nAs an initial matter, PHMSA withdrew CPF 4-2023-011-NOPV on April 22, 2025.7 Following\nthe withdrawal, PHMSA filed a complaint against Panhandle in the U.S. District Court for the\nNorthern District of Texas on the same day. The complaint did not include an allegation of\nviolation of § 192.605(b)(8).8 Therefore, there are no “double jeopardy” concerns from it. The\ncase was also settled and dismissed on January 12, 2026.9\nThis case does not undermine “fundamental fairness.” Section 192.605(a)(8) establishes a\nstraightforward requirement for operators to periodically review the work done by their\npersonnel to determine the effectiveness and adequacy of the procedures used in normal\noperation and maintenance, and modify the procedures when deficiencies are found. It is\nunderstandable from the plain language of the regulation. Energy Transfer and its subsidiaries\ntherefore had fair notice of what is required by the regulation.10 Issuing this case while CPF 4-\n2024-027-NOPV is pending does not violate “fundamental fairness” because the regulation at\nissue in that case, § 195.402(c)(13), is applicable to hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide\npipelines, not Transwestern’s gas pipeline.11 Like its Part 192 counterpart, § 195.402(c)(13)\nestablishes a straightforward requirement that is understandable by the plain text of the\nregulation.12\nEnergy Transfer is not placed in “double jeopardy” by the issuance of this case. “Double\njeopardy” only applies to proceedings that are “essentially criminal” in nature.13 The purpose of\nthe double jeopardy clause14 is to require a person to be subject to criminal punishment only\nonce for the same offense.15 This administrative case is not a criminal case, nor is it “essentially\n7 See Withdrawal of Notice Letter, CPFR 4-2023-011-NOPV (April 22, 2025).\n8 Complaint at 8, U.S. v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, L.P., No. 3:25-CV-01001 (N.D. Tex. April 22,\n2025).\n9 Joint Stipulation of Dismissal, U.S. v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, L.P., No. 3:25-CV-01001 (N.D.\nTex. January 12, 2026).\n10 Fair notice requires the agency to have “state[d] with ascertainable certainty what is meant by the standards [it]\nhas promulgated.” ExxonMobil Pipeline Company v. U.S. DOT, 867 F.3d 578, 573 (5th Cir. 2017).\n11 49 CFR Part 195 is applicable to hazardous liquid pipeline and carbon dioxide pipelines. See 49 CFR 195.0.\n12 49 CFR 195.402(c)(13) requires hazardous liquid pipeline operators to “[p]eriodically review[] the work done by\noperator personnel to determine the effectiveness of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and\ntak[e] corrective action where deficiencies are found.”\n13 See Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 1262 (10th Cir. 2006); Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 528 (1975).\n14 U.S. Const. amend. V.\n15 See Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 529-30 (1975).\n\n\n\n7\ncriminal” in nature.16 The Notice does not allege that Energy Transfer committed a crime, but\nrather failed to comply with federal pipeline safety regulations. The proposed remedy in the\ncompliance order merely requires Energy Transfer to take actions to bring it into compliance\nwith the regulatory requirements.\nFurthermore, this case and CPF 4-2024-027-NOPV do not allege the same offenses; therefore,\ndouble jeopardy is not a concern, even if it were applicable in non-criminal cases. The cases\ninvolve separate and distinct offenses that occurred on different days, in different places,\ninvolving different Energy Transfer subsidiaries, under different sets of facts.17\nIn CPF 4-2024-027-NOPV, PHMSA alleged a violation of § 195.402(c)(13) against Sunoco.\nTranswestern and Sunoco operate under different Operator Identification Number (OPID).18\nDifferent OPIDs indicate that each subsidiary has primary responsibility over its respective\npipeline, pipeline facility, or pipeline system.19 That is, each case involves a distinct and separate\noperator.\nThe locations of the alleged violations are different. This case pertains to pipeline in Arizona,\nColorado, New Mexico, and Texas. CPF 4-2024-027-NOPV pertains to pipeline in Houston,\nDelmont, and Montello, Pennsylvania.\nThe facts of the cases are distinct. CPF 4-2024-027-NOPV stemmed from an inspection of\nSunoco’s hazardous liquid pipeline. That case alleged that procedure “Guiding Principles for\nStandard Operating Procedures, A-HLA.02 (Rev. Sept. 1, 2023), was not periodically reviewed\npursuant to the regulatory requirement of § 195.402(c)(13). This is the same procedure cited in\nthe current case. However, the allegation in CPF 4-2024-027-NOPV is premised on additional,\ndistinct evidence than that underlying the allegation of violation in this case.20 Moreover, while §\n195.402(c)(13) establishes a similar periodic procedure review requirement, it is a distinct\nregulation not applicable in this case.\nIn summary, because this case does not pertain to a criminal case or a case essentially criminal in\nnature, and because this case involves different operators, places, times, facts, and evidence,\nEnergy Transfer is not placed in double jeopardy by this case.\n16 See Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 529 (1975) (“…the risk to which the term jeopardy refers is traditionally\nassociated with ‘actions intended to authorize criminal punishment to vindicate public justice.’”).\n17 See Murr v. U.S., 200 F.3d 895, 901 (6th Cir. 2000) (finding that double jeopardy does not apply to two charges\nstemming from conduct on different days, in different places, involving different people).\n18 The OPIDs for Transwestern and Sunoco are, respectively, 19610 and 18718.\n19 49 CFR § 191.22 states, in pertinent part, each operator of a gas pipeline or gas pipeline facility must obtain an\nOPID from PHMSA, and that an OPID is assigned to an operator for the pipeline, pipeline facility, or pipeline\nsystem for which the operator has primary responsibility. A similar requirement applies to operators of hazardous\nliquid and carbon dioxide pipelines under 49 CFR § 195.64.\n20 Compare CPF 4-2024-037-NOPV, Violation Report, Evidence Exhibit D with CPF 4-2024-027-NOPV, Violation\nReport, Evidence Exhibit C.\n\n\n\n8\nEnergy Transfer also cites the Final Order in ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, CPF 5-2013-5007\n(Jan. 23, 2015) for the proposition that some separately alleged violations may be so related that\nthey constitute a single offense. However, the principle articulated by ExxonMobil is not\napplicable here. PHMSA explained in ExxonMobil that it seeks to ensure that the alleged\nviolations are separate – “meaning they each require proof of an additional fact or have their\n‘own evidentiary basis.’” Here, the cases have their own evidentiary bases, as explained above.\nMoreover, the alleged violations are separate because they involve different operators, places,\ntimes, facts, and evidence.\nFinally, Energy Transfer asserts it is inappropriate for PHMSA to consider a parent company’s\nsubsidiaries when evaluating a company’s history of prior offenses when calculating a civil\npenalty, when they share a Safety Program Relationship, but deem them separate entities “when\ndetermining whether to bring the same violation against multiple subsidiary companies related to\nthe same, shared safety program.” This argument is unavailing. It is a statutory requirement that\na person owning or operating a pipeline facility comply with the applicable safety standards\nprescribed under Chapter 601 of United States Code Title 49, and PHMSA may issue orders\ndirecting compliance with Chapter 601 or a regulation prescribed thereunder.21 By Transwestern\nmaintaining an OPID for this pipeline, it indicates that Transwestern has primary responsibility\nover the pipeline.22 Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for PHMSA to find Transwestern out of\ncompliance with the regulation and direct it to take remedial requirements to ensure compliance\nwith the pipeline safety regulations.\nAccordingly, after considering all the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR\n§ 192.605(a)(8) by failing to follow its manual of written procedures for conducting operations\nand maintenance activities for emergency response.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 192.736, which states:\n§ 192.736 Compressor stations: Gas detection.\n(a) Not later than September 16, 1996, each compressor building in a\ncompressor station must have a fixed gas detection and alarm system, unless\nthe building is-\n(1) Constructed so that at least 50 percent of its upright side area is\npermanently open; or\n(2) Located in an unattended field compressor station of 1,000\nhorsepower (746 kilowatts) or less.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 192.736(a) by failing to install a fixed gas\ndetection and alarm system in each compressor building in a compressor station. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that Transwestern failed to install an alarm system at Atoka 1 and Atoka 2\nCompressor Station buildings that each have less than 50 percent of its upright side area\npermanently open.\n21 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a) & (b).\n22 See 49 CFR §§ 191.22 & 195.64.\n\n\n\n9\nIn its Response, Energy Transfer did not contest the allegation. Accordingly, after considering all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 192.736(a) by failing to install a fixed\ngas detection and alarm system in each compressor building in a compressor station.\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 192.736, which states:\n§ 192.736 Compressor stations: Gas detection.\n(a)….\n(b) Except when shutdown of the system is necessary for maintenance\nunder paragraph (c) of this section, each gas detection and alarm system\nrequired by this section must –\n(1) Continuously monitor the compressor building for a concentration\nof gas in air of not more than 25 percent of the lower explosive limit; and\n(2) If that concentration of gas is detected, warn persons about to enter\nthe building and persons inside the building of the danger.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 192.736(b) by failing to warn persons\nabout to enter a building and persons inside the building of a concentration of gas in air of not\nmore than 25 percent of the lower explosive limit (LEL). Specifically, the Notice alleged that at a\ngas concentration of 25 percent of LEL, the gas detection and alarm system at the West Texas-2\ncompressor building failure to actuate an audible or visual alarm.\nIn its Response, Energy Transfer did not contest the allegation. Accordingly, after considering all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 192.736(b) by failing to warn persons\nabout to enter the building and persons inside the building of a concentration of gas in air of not\nmore than 25 percent of the LEL.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATIONS\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR Part 191 and Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 191.5, which states:\n§ 191.5 Immediate notice of certain incidents.\n(a) At the earliest practicable moment following discovery, but no later\nthan one hour after confirmed discovery, each operator must give notice in\naccordance with paragraph (b) of this section of each incident as defined in\n§ 191.3.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 191.5(a) by failing to give notice in\naccordance with § 191.5(b) of each incident defined in § 191.3 at the earliest practicable moment\nfollowing discovery, but no later than one hour after confirmed discovery. Specifically, the\n\n\n\n10\nNotice alleged that Energy Transfer failed to notify the National Response Center (NRC) of four\nincidents at the earliest practicable moment following discovery, but no later than one after\nconfirmed discovery.\nIn its Response, Energy Transfer provided additional information to show that it timely reported\nthe four incidents. In a recommendation for final action submitted pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7),\nthe Director recommended withdrawing the alleged violation of § 191.5(a).\nAfter considering all of the evidence, to include the additional information provided with the\nResponse, I find that Respondent gave notice in accordance with § 191.5(b) of each incident\ndefined in § 191.3 at the earliest practicable moment following discovery, but no later than one\nhour after confirmed discovery, for each of the four incidents described in the Notice. Based\nupon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 1 be withdrawn.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Energy Transfer violated 49 CFR § 192.479, which states:\n§ 192.479 Atmospheric corrosion control: General.\n(a) Each operator must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of\npipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph\n(c) of this section.\nThe Notice alleged that Energy Transfer violated 49 CFR § 192.479(a) by failing to clean and\ncoat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that the pipeline exposed to the atmosphere at the Dairy Concepts metering\nstation was not cleaned and coated.\nIn its Response, Energy Transfer states that atmospheric inspections of the pipeline in question\nindicated that the pipeline showed only “surface oxides and no signs of pitting,” meaning that the\npipeline fit the exception under § 192.479(c). Energy Transfer also provided atmospheric\ninspection reports which classified the uncoated pipeline as not requiring remedial action. In\naddition, Respondent coated the bare pipelines after the inspection, as required by the Proposed\nCompliance Order. In a recommendation for final action submitted pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7),\nthe Director recommended withdrawing the alleged violation of § 192.479(a).\nAfter considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent did not violate § 192.479(a). Based\nupon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 3 be withdrawn.\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.23\n23 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223 for adjusted amounts.\n\n\n\n11\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 $176,700 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 proposed civil penalty for Item 1 to $23,500, for a total proposed civil penalty in this\ncase to $174,900.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $25,300 for Respondent’s alleged violation of 49\nCFR § 191.5(a), which was reduced to $23,500 by the revised civil penalty calculation policy.\nSince this alleged violation has been withdrawn, the proposed penalty is not assessed.\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $35,300 for Respondent’s alleged violation of 49\nCFR § 192.479(a). Since this alleged violation has been withdrawn, the proposed penalty is not\nassessed.\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $35,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49 CFR\n§ 192.481(a) and (b) for failing to inspect each pipeline or portion of the pipeline that is exposed\nto the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once every 3 calendar years, but\nwith intervals not exceeding 39 months, paying particular attention to pipe under thermal\ninsulation. The new policy for calculating a proposed civil penalty did not change the proposed\ncivil penalty for this Item. Energy Transfer contested the underlying allegation of violation. For\nthe reasons stated in the Findings of Violation section above, Item 4 is sustained. Energy\nTransfer did not present any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in or elimination of the\nproposed penalty absent withdrawal of the Item. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $35,300 for violation of\n49 CFR § 192.481(a) and (b).\nItem 6: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $41,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49 CFR\n§ 192.736(a) for failing to install fixed gas detection and alarm system in each compressor\nbuilding in a compressor station. The new policy for calculating a proposed civil penalty did not\nchange the proposed civil penalty for this Item. Energy Transfer neither contested the allegation\nnor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed\npenalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $41,700 for violation of 49 CFR § 192.736(a).\nItem 7: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $39,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 CFR\n§ 192.736(b) for failing to warn persons about to a building and persons inside the building of a\nconcentration of gas in air not more than 25 percent of the lower explosive limit. The new policy\n\n\n\n12\nfor calculating a proposed civil penalty did not change the proposed civil penalty for this Item.\nEnergy Transfer neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument\njustifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed\nthe record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $39,100\nfor violation of 49 CFR § 192.736(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 $116,100.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 CFR §§ 192.479(a), 192.481(a) and (b), 192.605(b)(8), 192.736(a), and\n192.736(b), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. As discussed above, Item 3 has been\nwithdrawn. Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for that Item are not\nincluded in this Order. The Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following\nactions to address some of the cited violations:\nItem 7: Transwestern provided records of a properly functional gas detection and\nalarm system at the West Texas-2 compressor building.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,\nthe compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Item 7 is not included in this Order.\nIn its Response, Energy Transfer states that for Item 4 it permanently removed the insulation at\nthe Atoka 2 Compressor Station and painted all associated piping. However, this does not satisfy\nthe terms of the Proposed Compliance Order for this Item. Energy Transfer did not present\nevidence or argument justifying modification or elimination of the proposed compliance order\nfor this Item.\nFor Item 5, Energy Transfer disputes the underlying allegation of violation, but did not present\nevidence or argument justifying modification or elimination of the proposed compliance order\nabsent its withdrawal.\nRegarding Item 6, Energy Transfer installed and tested gas detection at Atoka 1 and Atoka 2\ncompressor stations and provided inspection records and videos which it says demonstrate the\nalarm systems are functional. However, Energy Transfer did not provide a copy of the procedure\nused to test the gas detection and alarm systems, which was required by the proposed compliance\norder. Energy Transfer did not present evidence or argument justifying modification or\nelimination of the proposed compliance order.\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 CFR § 190.217, Respondent is ordered\n\n\n\n13\nto take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable\nto its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.481(a) and (b) (Item 4), Respondent must\nidentify all jurisdictional pipelines with thermal insulation. If permanent inspection\nports are installed, Transwestern must provide PHMSA with pictures of the\npermanent inspection ports and the last two cycles of atmospheric corrosion\ninspections that specifically detail the condition of the pipe underneath the thermal\ninsulation. If permanent inspection ports are not installed, Transwestern must follow\nits procedure and remove insulation or install permanent inspection ports at identified\ncorrosion monitoring locations. After installation of the permanent inspection ports,\nTranswestern must conduct atmospheric corrosion inspections of those pipelines and\nprovide those records, including permanent inspection port installation records and\npictures, to the Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA within 120 days of issuance of\nthis Final Order.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 192.605(b)(8) (Item 5), Respondent must\nconduct reviews of work performed by personnel to determ","truncated":true,"body_characters":43503}