# EQUITABLE GAS COMPANY, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

**Citation:** CPF 120061006  
**Type / status:** enforcement / historical  
**Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration  
**Effective:** Not stated  
**Published:** 2006-12-28

CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.911(l), 192.917(b), 192.925(b)(1), 192.925(b)(2), 192.925(b)(3), 192.925(b)(4), 192.927(b).

## Document text

Notice of Probable Violation involving EQUITABLE GAS COMPANY, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.911(l),  192.917(b),  192.925(b)(1),  192.925(b)(2),  192.925(b)(3),  192.925(b)(4),  192.927(b). The case was opened on 2006-12-28 and is reported as closed as of 2011-02-07. Proposed civil penalty: $296,400. Assessed civil penalty: $108,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

120061006_Closure Letter_02072011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120061006/120061006_Closure%20Letter_02072011.pdf

120061006_Closure Letter_02072011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120061006/120061006_Closure%20Letter_02072011_text.pdf

120061006_FinalOrder_05132010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120061006/120061006_FinalOrder_05132010.pdf

120061006_FinalOrder_05132010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120061006/120061006_FinalOrder_05132010_text.pdf

120061006_Closure Letter_02072011_text.pdf

U.S. Department 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103
Of Transportation West Trenton, NJ 08628
Pipeline and 609.989.2171
Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
EXPRESS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
February 7, 2011
Mr. Randall L. Crawford
President, EQT Midstream & Distribution
EQT Corporation
625 Liberty Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
CPF 1-2006-1006
Dear Mr. Crawford:
From July 11-15 and July 25-28 of 2005, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA) inspected Equitable Production Company’s (Equitable), now known
as EQT Midstream, Gas Integrity Management Program in Pittsburgh, PA. As a result of the
inspection, PHMSA issued a Final Order to Equitable on May 13, 2010. The Final Order included a
Compliance Order (CO) and Civil Penalty (CP) assessment. The CO required Equitable to take
certain actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations.
Among the requirements of the CO, Equitable must adequately document its completed and future
External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) process pertaining to Line H-153 as prescribed in the
regulations. However, Equitable has informed PHMSA that as of 2005 it no longer uses direct
assessment as an assessment method. Equitable has since reassessed Line H-153 by a pressure test in
2008.
Based on our review of the documentation you provided on January 18, 2011, that includes data for
the 2008 pressure test for Line H-153 and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been
determined that you have complied with the terms of this Final Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the matters
involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Byron Coy, PE
Director, Eastern Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

120061006_FinalOrder_05132010_text.pdf

MAY 13 2010
Mr. Randall L. Crawford
President, EQT Midstream and Distribution
EQT Corporation
625 Liberty Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Re: CPF No. 1-2006-1006
Dear Mr. Crawford:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation,
withdraws certain allegations, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $108,600, and specifies actions
that need to be taken by Equitable to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty
payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the
terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this
enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed
effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, PHMSA
Mr. David Dewey, Esq., Counsel for Equitable Utilities
Mr. Kirk K. Van Tine, Esq., Counsel for Equitrans, L.P., and Equitable Gas Company
CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0043 9443]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
_________________________________________
In the Matter of )
EQT Corporation, ) CPF No. 1-2006-1006
formerly Equitable Utilities Investments, Inc., )
and Equitable Resources, Inc., )
)
)
)
Respondent. )
_________________________________________ )
FINAL ORDER
On July 11-15 and 25-28, 2005, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an inspection of the Gas Integrity Management Program (IMP) records of Equitable
Resources, Inc., now known as EQT Corporation (Equitable or Respondent), in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
West Virginia.
1 Equitable operates natural gas pipelines throughout Kentucky, Pennsylvania and
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated December 28, 2006, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and
Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice
proposed finding that Respondent had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192,
assessing a civil penalty of $296,400 for the alleged violations, and ordering Respondent to take
certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed finding that
Respondent had committed another probable violation of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and warning
Respondent to take appropriate corrective action to address it or be subject to future enforcement
action.
By letter dated February 2, 2007, Equitable requested a hearing and sought and received several
extensions of time to reply to the Notice. The company provided a substantive response to the
Notice by letter dated February 5, 2007 (Response). Respondent contested all of the allegations
and requested a hearing. A hearing was held on December 11, 2007, in Washington, D.C., with
1 OPS inspected the IMP records of Equitable Resources, Inc., and served the Notice on Equitable Utilities
Investments, Inc., which became EQT Corporation in 2009. EQT Corporation is also the parent company of
Equitrans, L.P., and the Equitable Gas Company, the two entities that responded to the Notice in this matter.



2
Jim Curry, Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. On January 18, 2008,
Respondent provided certain documents and information requested during the hearing. During
the hearing, Respondent also requested the opportunity to submit a post-hearing brief and
subsequently sought and received various extensions of time to file the post-hearing brief on the
basis that Respondent and OPS had undertaken informal settlement discussions. After several
extensions, Equitable submitted its post-hearing brief (Closing) on May 16, 2008. Equitable was
represented by counsel throughout the proceeding.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:
Item 1(A): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b), which states:
§ 192.917 How does an operator identify potential threats to pipeline
integrity and use the threat identification in its integrity
program?
(a) . . .
(b) Data gathering and integration. To identify and evaluate the
potential threats to a covered pipeline segment an operator must gather
and integrate existing data and information on the entire pipeline that
could be relevant to the covered segment. In performing this data
gathering and integration, an operator must follow the requirements in
[American Society of Mechanical Engineers/American National Standards
Institute] ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 4. At a minimum, an operator
must gather and evaluate the set of data specified in Appendix A to
ASME/ANSI B31.8S, and consider both on the covered segment and
similar non-covered segments, past incident history, corrosion control
records, continuing surveillance records, patrolling records, maintenance
history, internal inspection records and all other conditions specific to
each pipeline.
The Notice alleged that Equitable violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b) by failing to properly gather
and integrate existing data and information on its pipelines in order to identify and evaluate the
potential threats to covered pipeline segments.2 Specifically, the Notice alleged three
deficiencies in Equitable’s procedures. First, it alleged that Equitable’s IMP did not contain
operator-specific steps for obtaining and documenting required data. Second, it alleged that the
IMP did not require data to be obtained from Equitable documents that corresponded to the
sources specified in the rule. Third, it alleged that the IMP did not include a detailed plan for the
validation of assumed values for missing data. Each of these allegations is discussed separately
below.
2 Section 192.917(b) incorporates by reference ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 4, which lists requirements for
gathering, reviewing, and integrating IMP data.



3
As for the first allegation that Equitable failed to have company-specific steps for obtaining and
documenting required data, the company submitted evidence in its Closing that it did, in fact,
have such procedures in place.
procedures are general in nature because they often use the term “Company” when describing
who is to follow the plan. This alone, however, does not prove that the IMP was not tailored to
Equitable’s particular pipeline system. Moreover, OPS did not explain what Equitable-specific
steps for obtaining and documenting data were missing, or why this alleged lack of specificity
constituted a violation of § 192.917(b). In the absence of a more specific allegation or
explanation and in light of the evidence in the record, I withdraw this portion of Item 1A.
3 Upon review of these documents, it is apparent that the cited
As for the second allegation that the company’s IMP did not require the use of documentation
from sources specified in the rule, I note that section 4.3 of ASME B31.8S (“ASME Code”) sets
out the requirement that data “can be obtained from within the operating company and from
external sources….” Equitable’s IMP states that the company will obtain data from sources
within the company and from external sources and lists the types of data and their sources.4
Therefore, these procedures, on their face, appear to require the collection of data in accordance
with the requirements of the regulation. OPS did not present evidence or argument to meet its
burden of proof that such procedures are deficient either under 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b) or the
referenced ASME Code. Accordingly, upon review of all of the evidence, I withdraw this
portion of Item 1A.
As for the third allegation that the IMP did not include a detailed plan for the validation of
missing data, Respondent argued that its IMP did, in fact, provide mechanisms for dealing with
“data gaps.
”5 Careful treatment of missing or questionable data is an important part of the gas
IMP framework. If such data are not properly accounted for, the risk assessment required under
§ 192.917 may produce inaccurate results. Since October 2004, OPS has made available to
operators its gas IMP compliance inspection protocols.6 Protocol C.02 pertains to inspections
for compliance with the data gathering and integration requirements of § 192.917(b).7 The
Protocol provides that: “If the operator lacks sufficient data or where data quality is suspect,
verify that the operator has followed the requirements in [the ASME Code].
”8
Section 192.917(b) and the referenced ASME Code set out requirements for addressing missing
or questionable data. First, section 4.1 of the ASME Code requires operators to use a
“systematic process … to collect and effectively utilize the data elements necessary for risk
3 Closing at 6, citing IMP Sections 4.5.1, 4.5.2, and 4.5.3 as evidence that it had company-specific steps for
obtaining and documenting required data.
4 Equitable IMP Procedures, section 4.5.2. – Data Sources.
5 Closing at 7, citing IMP Section 4.5.2.
6 PHMSA-OPS Gas Integrity Management Protocol Results Form (Oct. 2004) (available at
http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/gasimp/documents.htm).
7 Id. at Protocol C.02.
8 Protocol C.02.d, citing NACE Code Sections 4.2.1, 4.4, Appendix A, and 5.7(e).



4
assessment” of their pipeline segments. Next, section 4.2.1 provides that if data on a particular
threat to a pipeline segment are not available, operators shall assume that such threat applies to
that pipeline segment. Finally, section 4.4 requires operators to create
“
. . . a plan for collecting, reviewing, and analyzing the data… [The plan]
shall be created and in place from the conception of the data collection effort.
These processes are needed to verify the quality and consistency of the data.
Records shall be maintained throughout the process that identify where and
how unsubstantiated data is used in the risk assessment process, so its
potential impact on the variability and accuracy of assessment results can be
considered.”
Equitable’s procedures for the validation of assumed values for missing data elements must be
assessed in light of these requirements. Equitable offered a section of its IMP procedures as
evidence that it had addressed “data gaps.”9 Respondent’s procedure deals with data gaps, i.e.,
plans for data-gathering activities when data is missing, etc, but it does not address the validation
of data values that have been assumed. Equitable initiated efforts to validate assumed data only
after the PHMSA inspection, when it engaged a third-party expert to conduct testing to confirm
pipe grades.
C.F.R. § 192.917(b), including ASME B31.8S, section 4 referenced therein, by failing to include
in its IMP a detailed plan for the validation of assumed values for missing data.
10 Accordingly, after considering all the evidence, I find that Equitable violated 49
Item 1(B): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b), as quoted
above, by failing to gather certain required data and information on its pipelines. Specifically,
the Notice alleged that Equitable failed to gather, from its own records, pipe type and grade,
seam type, wall thickness, coating and the basis for calculating a pipeline’s maximum allowable
operating pressure (MAOP). It is undisputed that the regulation requires Equitable to “gather
and integrate existing data and information” on these pipeline characteristics. It is also
undisputed that Equitable did not collect some of this data from its own records.11
Respondent argued, however, that the regulation only required it to gather “existing data,” and
that some pipeline characteristics data on its pipelines was not available.12
Respondent
explained that certain of its pipelines were constructed before the implementation of pipeline
record-keeping requirements and that some data had been lost in a flood in the mid-1980’s.
While it is clear that Equitable did not have records of certain pipeline characteristics, there is no
evidence that Equitable failed to gather existing information from available records.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, I find that OPS has failed to meet its burden of proving a
violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.917(b), including ASME B31.8S, section 4 code referenced therein, and therefore order
that Item 1B be withdrawn.
9 Closing at 7.
10 Id. at 10.
11 Id.
12 Response at 3-4, Closing at 10-11.



5
Item 1(C): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b), as quoted
above, by failing to maintain pipe characteristics data in its IMP. Specifically, the Notice alleged
that the grade of plastic on a certain gas transmission line was listed incorrectly, and that the
MAOP and test pressure of the pipeline were incorrectly listed as being the same. Equitable
explained that the source data was correct but admitted that it had incorrectly entered this data in
the spreadsheet used to collect pipeline data for its IMP.
13 Equitable argued that this data error
was not a pipeline safety issue and that the pipeline segment was low risk.14
Although this
particular inaccuracy caused no apparent harm, accurate data entry is important to the quality of
Equitable’s IMP. Inaccurate data can result in a failure to identify and address the actual risks on
a pipeline segment. Based on the foregoing, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.917(b) by failing to maintain pipe characteristics data in its IMP.
Item 1(D): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b), as quoted
above, by failing to follow section 4 of the ASME Code in considering “unavailable data” on its
pipeline segments when conducting the required threat identification and risk assessment. The
ASME Code provides a process for taking certain actions when an operator lacks the data
necessary to identify potential threats to pipeline integrity. Section 4.2.1 of the ASME Code
provides that if data needed to perform a risk assessment is unavailable, “it shall be assumed that
the particular threat applies to the pipeline segment being evaluated.” Section 4.4 further
provides that “[r]ecords shall be maintained throughout the process that identify where and how
unsubstantiated data is used in the risk assessment process, so its potential impact on the
variability and accuracy of assessment results can be considered.” Finally, Appendix A of the
ASME Code provides that “where the operator is missing data, conservative assumptions shall
be used when performing the risk assessment or alternatively the segment shall be placed in a
higher priority category.” The regulations therefore permit operators to make conservative
assumptions in lieu of using actual data but also require that operators show how they made such
assumptions and to document them.15
In response, Equitable argued that it had considered unavailable data by making conservative
assumptions where data was not available, as permitted by the regulation.16 For example,
Equitable argued that it considered seam failure threats on pre-1970 pipe even though there was
no history of seam failures on its system,
17
yet provided no records or evidence to document any
of these conservative assumptions. The OPS Violation Report cited Respondent’s IMP
procedures and certain data forms as evidence that the company did not adequately consider
unavailable data, yet the report failed to indicate how it did so or what records were missing.
While Equitable’s efforts to address unavailable data may have been inadequate, in the absence
of a more detailed allegation or relevant evidence, the record in this case does not support a
finding of violation. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, I find that OPS has failed to meet its
13 Response at 5, Closing at 12.
14 Closing at 12.
15 ASME B31.8S, Sections 4-5 & Appendix A.
16 Response at 5, Closing at 13.
17 Closing at 13.



6
burden of proving a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b), including the ASME B31.8S section 4
code referenced therein, and therefore order that Item 1(D) be withdrawn.
Item 1(E): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b), as quoted
above, by failing to make sufficient efforts to obtain required data on its pipelines, as required by
section 4 of the ASME Code. Neither the Notice nor the Violation Report explain how or why
Equitable’s efforts were insufficient to obtain required data. In its Response, Equitable indicated
that as part of its data-gathering effort, it used a consultant familiar with the company’s pipeline
Equitable had not employed the necessary resources to obtain pipeline system data because it had
only used one consultant to obtain the data. OPS did not provide an explanation as to why using
just one consultant was insufficient. The fact that Equitable used one consultant to perform its
IMP data collection efforts does not, without more, prove that a violation has occurred.
Accordingly, based on the evidence, I find that OPS has failed to meet its burden of proving a
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b), including the ASME B31.8S section 4 code referenced
therein, and therefore order that Item 1(E) be withdrawn.
systems to review all engineering records and field data.18 At the hearing, OPS indicated that
Item 2(A): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(1), which
states:
§ 192.925 What are the requirements for using External Corrosion
Direct Assessment (ECDA)?
(a) Definition. ECDA is a four-step process that combines pre-
assessment, indirect inspection, direct examination, and post assessment to
evaluate the threat of external corrosion to the integrity of a pipeline.
(b) General requirements. An operator that uses direct assessment to
assess the threat of external corrosion must follow the requirements in this
section, in ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7),
section 6.4, and in NACE RP 0502-2002 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 192.7). An operator must develop and implement a direct assessment plan
that has procedures addressing preassessment, indirect examination, direct
examination, and post-assessment. If the ECDA detects pipeline coating
damage, the operator must also integrate the data from the ECDA with other
information from the data integration (§ 192.917(b)) to evaluate the covered
segment for the threat of third party damage, and to address the threat as
required by § 192.917(e)(1).
(1) Preassessment. In addition to the requirements in ASME/ANSI
B31.8S, section 6.4 and NACE RP 0502-2002, section 3, the plan’s
procedures for preassessment must include –
(i) Provisions for applying more restrictive criteria when conducting
ECDA for the first time on a covered segment; and
(ii) The basis on which an operator selects at least two different, but
complementary indirect assessment tools to assess each ECDA Region. If an
operator utilizes an indirect inspection method that is not discussed in
Appendix A of NACE RP0502-2002, the operator must demonstrate the
18 Response at 5.



7
applicability, validation basis, equipment used, application procedure, and
utilization of data for the inspection method.
The Notice alleged that Equitable violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(1), including section 6.4 of
the ASME Code and section 3 of NACE RP 0502-2002 (NACE Standard), by failing to conduct
an evaluation to determine which data elements were necessary for an adequate External
Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) for specific pipelines and High Consequence Areas
(HCAs).
19 Specifically, the Notice alleged that Equitable failed to obtain all required or critical
data and to make conservative assumptions where data was lacking or questionable, during its
proper ECDA pre-assessment.
ECDA pre-assessment.20 The Notice alleged that Equitable did not know where bare pipe
started and ended on Line H-153 and that such pipe transition knowledge was essential data for a
Section 192.925(b)(1) requires Equitable to follow section 3 of the NACE Standard, which
provides that an operator must “define minimum data requirements based on the history and
condition of the pipeline segment” and “identify data elements that are critical to the success of
allegedly failed to meet when it lacked basic information about the location of bare- to coated-
pipe transitions on the H-153 line.
the ECDA process.”21 Apparently, it is this “critical elements” requirement that Equitable
In response, Equitable argued that there is no evidence showing that the company failed to
identify or use all “critical elements” in developing its ECDA pre-assessment process.
22 The
company argued that section 3.2.2 of the NACE Standard does not require a specific list of data
elements, and that the determination of required or “critical elements” is up to the company and
flexibility in determining “critical elements,” but this judgment is not left entirely to the
discretion of the operator. OPS must be able to assess the reasonableness of an operator’s
not the agency.23 Respondent is correct that the NACE Standard allows an operator some
choices in light of the history and condition of its pipelines and in the context of the operator’s
own unique IMP.
The problem here is that OPS did not present evidence or analysis proving that Equitable’s
choice of “critical elements” was inadequate or why it was essential, for purposes of the
regulation, that Equitable know the exact location of bare- to coated-pipe transitions as part of
19 “High Consequence Areas” are geographic areas located in proximity to gas pipelines where there is a
heightened risk of injury to life and property in the event of a pipeline failure. For the definition of HCAs, see 49
C.F.R. § 192.903.
20 The Gas IMP regulations permit Equitable to use the ECDA process, where appropriate, to evaluate external
corrosion threats on its pipelines. The first step in the process is pre-assessment. In this step, the operator must
determine whether ECDA is feasible and, if so, select at least two indirect inspection tools and identify ECDA
regions. NACE RP0502-2002, Section 3. ECDA regions consist of one or more sections of pipeline with similar
physical characteristics and operating history and in which the same indirect inspection tools are used. Section 2
21 Section 3.2.1.1.
22 Response at 6, Closing at 15.
23 Closing at 16.



8
the pre-assessment process. On the contrary, it appears that Equitable took steps during the
ECDA process to account for such uncertainties by making conservative assumptions where data
was lacking or questionable. Equitable argued that although the exact location of the bare- to
coated-pipe transitions may not have been known, the company extended its electronic surveys
beyond the estimated transition points.
explanation as to why the extension of electrical surveys was not an appropriate conservative
assumption.
24 OPS did not rebut Equitable’s argument or provide an
Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that OPS has failed to meet its
burden of proving a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(1), including section 6.4 of the ASME
Code and section 3 of the NACE Standard, and therefore order that Item 2(A) be withdrawn.
Item 2(B): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(1), as quoted
above, by failing to properly conduct ECDA on Line H-153. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
Equitable had indicated that it did not employ ECDA on areas with cased pipeline segments, yet
records for H-153 showed a cased section within that ECDA region. The Notice also alleged
that the H-153 ECDA data made “suspect” the feasibility of Equitable’s use of ECDA as an
assessment method and how ECDA regions were determined. During the hearing, Equitable
provided a document indicating that it had not applied ECDA to the areas of cased pipeline, as
alleged in the Notice.
changed its view on this Item. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I order
that Item 2(B) be withdrawn.
25 OPS acknowledged during the hearing that this document would have
Item 2(C): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(1), as quoted
above, including section 3 of the NACE Standard, by failing to properly select indirect
examination tools to assess each ECDA region. Specifically, the Notice alleged that excavations
performed during the direct examination step revealed that a “coating holiday” which had been
detected during an earlier indirect examination actually turned out to a section of bare pipe. The
Notice alleged that “[T]his anomalous result raises questions regarding the adequacy of the
ECDA process… Specifically, this result makes suspect the choice of indirect examination
tools.”26
24 Id.
25 Equitable provided a copy of GTI Form C1, “Indication Severity Classification and Priority Category and
Reassessment Dates.” This form is dated November 5, 2005, which falls after the OPS inspection. During the
hearing, Equitable explained that it had mistakenly dated the form “2005,” instead of “2004.” After the hearing,
Equitable provided a signed declaration that the correct date of completion of the form was November 5, 2004, and
an explanation of the error.
26 Notice at 6.



9
In response, Equitable argued that the indirect examination tool it had selected was capable of
providing accurate results at bare- to coated-pipe transitions.27 Equitable explained that when it
performed the survey, the “tool identified an area of pipe consistent with bare pipe” and that it
had verified the tool results by performing an excavation of the indication at the suspected bare-
to coated-pipe transition.28
Although the excavations performed by Equitable may have “raised questions” about the
adequacy of its ECDA process, such doubts do not constitute proof of a violation of
§ 192.925(b)(1). The regulation requires Equitable to follow section 3.4 of the NACE Standard
when selecting assessment tools and to select a minimum of two tools for all ECDA regions.
The tools must complement each other, based on their ability to reliably detect corrosion activity
and/or coating holidays under the specific pipeline and environmental conditions anticipated. In
other words, an operator must use tools suited to the type of pipe being inspected and the
environment in which it is buried. Tool selection is important because certain tools are less
effective, or not effective at all, on bare versus coated pipe. If Equitable’s tool selection did not
account for the location of bare versus coated pipe, the company might be applying tools which
would not provide accurate results.
OPS cited various Equitable documents as evidence that the company had not properly selected
indirect examination tools, including IMP procedures and inspection results. Yet it is not clear
why, how, or what parts of these documents prove a violation. The cited documents do not
appear relevant to the allegation and OPS did not provide an explanation as to how the
documents proved a violation. Absent any such explanation and in light of Equitable’s
reasonable arguments supporting its ECDA tool selection process, I find that OPS has failed to
meet its burden of proving a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(1) and therefore order that Item
2(C) be withdrawn.
Item 2(D): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(1), as quoted
above, by failing to document the basis on which it selected at least two different, but
complementary, indirect assessment tools to assess each ECDA region. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that Respondent did not document the basis for the selection of tools actually used to
assess Line H-153. It is undisputed that during the pre-assessment stage, Equitable planned to
use Close Interval Survey (CIS) and Direct Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG) tools on H-153
but later opted to use a Pipeline Current Mapper (PCM) tool instead of DCVG.
In response, Equitable argued that the regulation does not require it to document the basis for its
selection of indirect assessment tools.29 I disagree. The regulation requires an operator, as part
of its pre-assessment procedures, to include “the basis on which an operator selects at least two
different, but complementary indirect assessment tools to assess each ECDA Region” (emphasis
added).30
In addition, the 2004 OPS IMP Inspection Protocols indicated that OPS would verify
27 Closing at 20.
28 Id.
29 Equitable supplementary information, Jan. 18, 2008, at 2.
30 49 C.F.R. § 912.925(b)(1)(ii).



10
documentation of the basis for tool selections during inspections.
documents showing which tools Equitable used, as well as general guidance on when certain
tools should and should not be used, none of these documents explains the basis on which
specific tools were selected for particular ECDA regions.
31 While the record contains
Absent such documentation, neither Equitable nor OPS can verify that proper tools were
selected. In its Closing, Equitable argued that it had documented its basis for tool selection by
adopting the Gas Technology Institute (GTI) ECDA Implementation Protocol as part of its IMP
procedures.32 Respondent also explained why it changed from using DCVG to PCM as its
second indirect tool.33
Neither Equitable’s adoption of the GTI protocol nor its explanation
during and after the hearing constitutes adequate documentation of the basis for selecting two
different but complementary tools for each particular ECDA region. Regardless of the merits of
Respondent’s explanation of the switch from DCVG to PCM, the record fails to show, as of the
date of the inspection, that Equitable had included a documented basis for tool selection as part
of its pre-assessment procedures.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence in the record, I find that Respondent violated
49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(1) by failing to document the basis on which it selected at least two
different but complementary indirect assessment tools to assess each ECDA region.
Item 2(E): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(1), as quoted
above, including section 3 of the NACE Standard, by failing to properly identify ECDA regions
on Line H-153. Specifically, it alleged that Equitable failed to base the selection of ECDA
regions on certain pipeline construction specifications and environment factors, including soil,
environment, corrosion protection history, or uncertainties about pipe design information (e.g.,
wall, grade, and coating). The Notice also alleged that Equitable did not adjust ECDA regions
after finding different-than-expected conditions and that it improperly grouped cased and non-
cased pipe in the same region.
In response, Equitable argued that under § 192.925(b)(1) and the NACE Standard, it was not
required to base its identification of ECDA regions on particular factors, and that, even if it were,
the company in fact considered a variety of factors in selecting the regions. Section 3.5 of the
NACE Standard requires an operator to define the criteria it uses for identifying ECDA regions.
31 Protocol D.02.c.
32 Closing at 21.
33 Closing at 22.



11
The NACE Standard states: “An ECDA region is a portion of a pipeline segment that has similar
physical characteristics, corrosion histories, expected future corrosion conditions, and that uses
the same indirect inspection tools.”34 In defining such criteria, operators must “consider all
conditions that could significantly affect external corrosion.”35
In this case, however, OPS presented no evidence or explanation as to why Equitable was
required to consider the additional factors listed in the Notice (i.e., “soil, environment, or CP
history”) in order to satisfy the requirements of section 3.5 of the NACE Standard. OPS did not
show how or why Equitable selected ECDA regions on the H-153 pipeline. As a result, there is
inadequate information in the record to show that Respondent failed to properly select ECDA
regions.
Equitable further argued that it did not adjust ECDA regions because it did not find any
differences between expected and as-found conditions. Here, again, there is no evidence in the
record that shows a difference between expected and as-found conditions that would have
required Respondent to adjust ECDA regions.
Finally, Equitable argued that it did not put cased pipe into ECDA regions with uncased pipe, as
alleged in the Notice. Respondent explained that it extended some of its surveys beyond the
ends of uncased pipe simply to ensure that no uncased pipe was overlooked. Respondent also
provided a document showing that it did, in fact, exclude the H-153 cased pipe from its ECDA.36
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence in the record, I order that Item 2(E) be
withdrawn.
Item 2(F): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(2), which
states:
§ 192.925 What are the requirements for using External Corrosion
Direct Assessment (ECDA)?
(a) …
(b) General requirements. An operator that uses direct assessment to
assess the threat of external corrosion must follow the requirements of this
34 Section 3.5.1.1.1.
35 Section 3.5.1.1 provides that “pipeline operators should define criteria for identifying ECDA regions” (emphasis
added). PHMSA expects operators to implement “should” statements in industry standards that are invoked by
regulation. PHMSA communicates this expectation and other gas IMP guidance to operators via the Gas
Transmission Pipeline Integrity Management website at http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/gasimp. Frequently Asked
Question No. 244 provides: “…OPS expects operators to implement "should" statements in industry standards that
are invoked by the rule. Operators may choose to implement an alternative approach in meeting the
recommendations of invoked standards. If this approach is taken, program requirements for the alternative approach
must exist in IM Program documents and records must be generated by the alternative approach. The IM Program
documents must also technically justify that the alternative approach provides an equivalent level of protection. If an
operator chooses not to implement a "should" statement in an invoked standard, a sound technical basis for why it
has not been implemented must be documented in the IM Program documents.”
36 GTI Form C-1, for Line H-153.



12
section in ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7),
section 6.4, and in NACE RP 0502-2002 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 192.7). An operator must develop and implement a direct assessment
plan that has procedures addressing preassessment, indirect examination,
direct examination, and post-assessment. If the ECDA detects pipeline
coating damage, the operator must also integrate the data from the ECDA
with other information from the data integration (§ 192.917(b)) to evaluate
the covered segment for the threat of third party damage, and to address
the threat as required by § 192.917(e)(1).
(1) …
(2) Indirect examination. In addition to the requirements in
ASME/ANSI B31.8S section 6.4 and NACE RP 0502–2002, section 4, the
plan’s procedures for indirect examination of the ECDA regions must
include-
(i) Provisions for applying more restrictive criteria when conducting
ECDA for the first time on a covered segment;
(ii) Criteria for identifying and documenting those indications that
must be considered for excavation and direct examination. Minimum
identification criteria include the known sensitivities of assessment tools,
the procedures for using each tool, and the approach to be used for
decreasing the physical spacing of indirect assessment tool readings when
the presence of a defect is suspected;
(iii) Criteria for defining the urgency of excavation and direct
examination of each indication identified during the indirect examination.
These criteria must specify how an operator will define the urgency of
excavating the indication as immediate, scheduled or monitored; and
(iv) Criteria for scheduling excavation of indications for each urgency
level.
The Notice alleged that Equitable violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(2)(ii), by failing to document
the criteria it used for decreasing the physical spacing of indirect assessment tool readings when
the presence of a defect was suspected. Specifically, it alleged that Equitable did not document
the criteria for changing the spacing of PCM tool readings on Line H-153. OPS asserted that
Equitable had used a different PCM tool spacing than what was recommended in the tool
manual. Equitable admitted this but argued that it had done so to allow for a greater number of
PCM readings and not in response to a suspected defect.
I find that OPS has failed to meet its burden of proving a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(2)
and therefore order that Item 2F be withdrawn.
37 Accordingly, based on the foregoing,
Item 2G: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(2), as quoted
above, including section 4 of the referenced NACE Standard, by failing to perform an alignment
and comparison of the data from the ECDA inspection tools used on Line H-153. Section 4.3 of
the NACE Standard, entitled “Alignment and Comparison,” requires that after an operator has
gathered all indirect inspection data, it must identify and align all indications or deviations
37 Closing at 25-26.



13
revealed by different ECDA tools for comparison. The Notice also alleged that Equitable’s IMP
failed to describe an Equitable-specific process for this data alignment and comparison process.
In response, Equitable first argued that it had properly aligned and compared ECDA data on Line
H-153 by reviewing three separate contractor ECDA reports, and by comparing the indications in
each report according to common pipeline stationing and above-ground references.
38 I find
Respondent’s argument unpersuasive. Equitable’s procedures for alignment and comparison
required the company first to “align two or more sets of tool data for the region by comparing
start and stop locations, as well as above ground reference locations.”39 Next, the procedures
required Equitable to “overlay two or more data sets on top of a virtual centerline for
comparison.”40
Equitable’s review of the three separate tool reports failed to comply with the alignment and
comparison procedures required either by the regulation or the company’s own procedures. I
interpret the use of the word “alignment” in the NACE Standard to require Equitable to put
separate ECDA data together in a common format or document and to compare that data by the
use of a common reference point. Equitable’s own alignment and comparison procedures are
consistent with this interpretation because they require the company to “overlay” data onto a
three separate ECDA reports, alignment and comparison only takes place, if at all, in the mind of
the person performing the review. This does not allow either Equitable or PHMSA to determine
whether the alignment and comparison process has been done properly. I find that section 4.3 of
the NACE Standard requires an operator to define the criteria it uses for identifying ECDA
regions and to undertake an alignment and comparison of the data in a manner that is
“virtual centerline for comparison.”41 When Equitable performs an undocumented review of
documented and verifiable, a process that Equitable failed to perform.
Equitable next argued that it was not required to have an “Equitable-specific process” for the
alignment and comparison of ECDA data. OPS did not explain what it meant by an Equitable-
specific process, or why Equitable’s existing procedures violated the regulation. In the absence
of an explanation of the alleged inadequacies, or other evidence of a violation, I withdraw this
portion of Item 2G.
Accordingly, based upon a review of the record, I find that Equitable violated § 192.925(b)(2),
including section 4 of the referenced NACE Standard, by failing to perform an adequate
alignment and comparison of ECDA inspection tool results.
Item 2H: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(2), as quoted
above, and § 192.925(b)(3), which provides:
38 Id. at 27.
39 IMP Section 7, GTI Protocol Section 4.5
40 Id.
41 Id.



14
§ 192.925 What are the requirements for using External Corrosion
Direct Assessment (ECDA)?
(a) …
(b) …
(1) …
(2) Indirect examination. In addition to the requirements in
ASME/ANSI B31.8S section 6.4 and NACE RP 0502-2002, section 4, the
plan’s procedures for indirect examination of the ECDA regions must
include-
. . .
(iii) Criteria for defining the urgency of excavation and direct
examination of each indication identified during the indirect examination.
These criteria must specify how an operator will define the urgency of
excavating the indication as immediate, scheduled or monitored: . . . .
(3) Direct examination. In addition to the requirements in
ASME/ANSI B31.8S section 6.4 and NACE RP 0502–2002, section 5, the
plan’s procedures for direct examination of indications from the indirect
examination must include-
(i) Provisions for applying more restrictive criteria when conducting
ECDA for the first time on a covered segment;
(ii) Criteria for deciding what action should be taken if either:
(A) Corrosion defects are discovered that exceed allowable limits
(Section 5.5.2.2 of NACE RP0502–2002), or
(B) Root cause analysis reveals conditions for which ECDA is not
suitable (Section 5.6.2 of NACE RP0502–2002);
(iii) Criteria and notification procedures for any changes in the ECDA
Plan, including changes that affect the severity classification, the priority
of direct examination, and the time frame for direct examination of
indications; and
(iv) Criteria that describe how and on what basis an operator will
reclassify and reprioritize any of the provisions that are specified in
section 5.9 of NACE RP0502–2002.
The Notice alleged that Equitable failed to comply with § 192.925(b)(2)(iii) and (b)(3), by failing
to document or apply criteria for defining the urgency of excavation and direct examination of
each corrosion indication identified during the indirect examination process. The Notice also
alleged that Equitable did not use criteria that took into account the likelihood of current
corrosion and an evaluation of corrosion history. The Notice referenced section 7 of Equitable’s
IMP and the inspection results for Line H-153 as evidence in support of this allegation.
In response, Equitable argued that its IMP did include adequate criteria for classifying and
prioritizing corrosion indications.42
A review of the record indicates that Equitable’s IMP did
contain procedures for classifying indication severity, including a table for determining severity
on the basis of results from several types of ECDA tools, and procedures for prioritizing the
42 Closing at 29, citing Sections 4.6. and 5.3.6 of the GTI ECDA Implementation Protocol.



15
direct assessment of corrosion indications. The company’s procedures also required Equitable to
consider corrosion history.43 At the hearing, Equitable provided evidence that showed it had
documented the severity of indications and prioritized direct assessments based on a ranking of
corrosion severity.44
OPS offered no other evidence or explanation to rebut the company’s
arguments and evidence. Accordingly, based upon a review of the record, I find that OPS has
failed to meet its burden of proving a violation of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.925(b)(2) and (b)(3) and
therefore order that Item 2H be withdrawn.
Item 2I: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(2), as quoted
above, by failing to properly perform the indirect assessment step of the ECDA process.
Specifically, it alleged that the ECDA results “and/or Equitable’s interpretation of these
indications” were inadequate because, during a subsequent direct assessment excavation,
Equitable found bare pipe where it had suspected a coating anomaly on coated pipe. The Notice
referenced section 7 of Equitable’s IMP and the inspection results for Line H-153 as evidence in
support of this allegation. The Notice further alleged that this discovery of bare pipe was
“indicative of the inadequacy of the Equitable ECDA process” and made “suspect” the adequacy
of the indications obtained from the tools, but the Notice failed to tie Equitable’s conduct to any
specific requirement in § 192.925(b)(2).
In response, Equitable argued that it had extended its ECDA surveys beyond suspected bare- to
coated-pipe transitions as a conservative measure to ensure that both bare and coated pipe were
properly assessed. The company contended that the indication in question occurred in the
vicinity of a known bare- to coated-pipe transition. Equitable explained that it excavated the
indication and confirmed that it was on bare pipe and that the ECDA tool was functioning
properly. OPS offered no other evidence or explanation to rebut the company’s arguments and
evidence. Accordingly, based upon a review of the record, I find that OPS has failed to meet its
burden of proving a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(2) and therefore order that Item 2I be
withdrawn.
Item 2J: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(2), as quoted
above, and § 192.917(e)(1), which provides:
§ 192.917 How does an operator identify potential threats to pipeline
integrity and use the threat identification in its integrity
program?
(a) …
(e) Actions to address particular threats. If an operator identifies any
of the following threats, the operator must take the following actions to
address the threat.
(1) Third party damage. An operator must utilize the data integration
required in paragraph (b) of this section and ASME/ANSI B31.8S,
Appendix A7 to determine the susceptibility of each covered segment to
the threat of third party damage. If an operator identifies the threat of third
party damage, the operator must implement comprehensive additional
43 GTI ECDA Implementation Protocol, Section 5.3.7.
44 Closing at 29, citing GTI Form C-1 for Line H-153.



16
preventive measures in accordance with § 192.935 and monitor the
effectiveness of the preventive measures. If, in conducting a baseline
assessment under § 192.921, or a reassessment under § 192.937, an
operator uses an internal inspection tool or external corrosion direct
assessment, the operator must integrate data from these assessments with
data related to any encroachment or foreign line crossing on the covered
segment, to define where potential indications of third party damage may
exist in the covered segment.
An operator must also have procedures in its integrity management
program addressing actions it will take to respond to findings from this
data integration. . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(e)(1) by failing to address
third-party damage data as part of its pre-assessment process. The Notice also alleged that
Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(2) by failing to have a sufficiently documented
process for integrating and analyzing ECDA and third-party damage data or for identifying
potential areas of third-party damage that required remedial action. Specifically, it alleged that
Equitable failed to perform such an analysis during the ECDA for Line H-153.
In response, Equitable argued that it did consider third-party damage data in the pre-assessment
phase by adopting procedures that required the collection of such data.
45 The company also
argued that it had included a specific process for integrating and analyzing such data, along with
that only after the PHMSA inspection had it reviewed Line H-153 data alongside aerial
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, I find that Equitable violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.917(e)(1)
Line H-153.
ECDA results, in its IMP procedures.46 alignment maps and in the field to determine the location of foreign utility crossings. While
Equitable appears to have had some process for integrating and analyzing third-party damage
and ECDA data, such process was not actually implemented until after the OPS inspection.
and 192.925(b)(2) by failing to have an adequate process for integrating and analyzing ECDA
data with data related to third-party damage and that it failed to perform such an analysis for
However, in its Response, the company also admitted
45 Closing at 31. Equitable explained that its ECDA Implementation Protocol required the collection of third-party
damage data. Respondent cited elements 2.11 and 5.8 of its Data Element Tables (DETs), which require it to collect
data on the proximity of its pipelines to other pipelines, structures, electric lines and rail crossings, as well as data on
historical third-party damage.
46 Closing at 31, citing Equitable ECDA Implementation Protocol, Section 4.5. This section requires Equitable to
overlay the pre-assessment data it has collected in its DET with the data collected from its ECDA process. The
DETs contain elements for third-party damage, including proximity to other structures such as pipelines and
railroads, and history of third-party damage.



17
Item 2K: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(3), as quoted
above, by failing to include in its ECDA plan, as required by § 192.925(b), the “Criteria and
notification procedures for any changes in the ECDA Plan, including changes that affect the
severity classification, the priority of direct examination, and the time frame for direct
examination of indications.
”47 Specifically, it alleged that Equitable’s procedures for making
changes were “too general” because they did not directly refer to ECDA indication severity,
priorities or time frames.48 The Notice also alleged that Equitable’s ECDA plan did not include
steps to ensure communication of changes regarding direct examination priority and
scheduling.
as evidence in support of these allegations.
49 The Notice referenced Equitable’s IMP and the inspection results for Line H-153
In its Response, Equitable argued that its procedures for making changes to its ECDA plan were
general in nature, covered many different integrity-related activities, and could not specifically
address every possible type of potential change.
communicated to affected personnel in monthly operations meetings. Equitable argued that this
method of notifying personnel of IMP changes was very effective. Respondent did not address
the allegation that its ECDA plan did not include any procedures to provide notification of
changes made specifically to that portion of its IMP.
50 Equitable explained that IMP changes were
The bottom line, however, is that Equitable’s ECDA plan failed to address the required
procedures for notification of changes that were made to such plan. Equitable’s practice of
notifying its personnel of ECDA plan changes via monthly meetings does not constitute the sort
of documented procedures required by the regulation. Accordingly, based upon a review of the
record, I find that Equitable violated § 192.925(b)(3) by failing to include in its ECDA plan the
criteria and notification procedures for any changes that it has made in its ECDA plan, including
changes that affect the severity classification, the priority of direct examination, and the time
frame for direct examination of indications.
Item 2L: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(4), which
provides:
§ 192.925 What are the requirements for using External Corrosion
Direct Assessment (ECDA)?
(a) …
(b) …
(4) Post assessment and continuing evaluation. In addition to the
requirements in ASME/ANSI B31.8S section 6.4 and NACE RP 0502-2002,
47 The Notice also alleged that Equitable violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(4). However, the Notice did not explain
why a separate violation of (b)(4) occurred and no reason is evident from a review of the record.
48 The Notice cited Section 14.4.2, Management of Change, of Equitable’s IMP Plan.
49 The Notice cited Sections 5.9.7 and 5.10 of the GTI ECDA Implementation Protocol which Equitable had
adopted into Section 7 of its IMP.
50 Response at 12.



18
section 6, the [ECDA] plan’s procedures for post assessment of the
effectiveness of the ECDA process must include –
(i) Measures for evaluating the long-term effectiveness of ECDA in
addressing external corrosion in covered segments; and
(ii) Criteria for evaluating whether conditions discovered by direct
examination of indications in each ECDA region indicate a need for
reassessment of the covered segment at an interval less than that specified in
§ 192.939. (See Appendix D of NACE RP 0502-2002).
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(4) by failing to develop and
implement an ECDA plan that included adequate post-assessment and continuing evaluation
procedures, as set forth in ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 6.4, and NACE RP 0502-2002.
Specifically, it alleged that Equitable had neither documented feedback during the ECDA
process nor documented how feedback would be applied to future assessments.
Equitable argued that this allegation was untimely because the company was still in the Direct
Assessment step of the ECDA process at the time of the inspection and that no feedback was
required until after that step had been completed.51 Equitable’s argument is not persuasive.
Although feedback and continuous improvement requirements are set out in the post-assessment
provisions of the NACE Standard, section 6.5 of that standard also requires that feedback and
continuous improvement activities are to be undertaken at all stages of the ECDA process.
52
This means that an operator may not wait until the end of the ECDA process to begin
incorporating and documenting feedback. Accordingly, based on a review of the record, I find
that Equitable violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(4), including section 6 of the NACE Standard, by
failing to incorporate feedback into its ECDA process.
Item 3A: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911(l), which provides:
§ 192.911 What are the elements of an integrity management
program?
An operator's initial integrity management program begins with a
framework (see § 192.907) and evolves into a more detailed and
comprehensive integrity management program, as information is gained and
incorporated into the program. An operator must make continual
improvements to its program. The initial program framework and subsequent
program must, at minimum, contain the following elements. (When indicated,
refer to ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7) for
more detailed information on the listed element.)
(a) …
(l) A quality assurance process as outlined in ASME/ANSI B31.8S,
section 12.
51 Closing at 33.
52 Section 6.5.1 provides “throughout the ECDA process, as well as during scheduled activities and reassessment,
the pipeline operator shall endeavor to improve the ECDA applications by incorporating feedback at all appropriate
opportunities.”



19
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911(l) by failing to implement a
quality assurance process, as outlined in ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 12, in its initial IMP.
Specifically, it alleged that Equitable had not reviewed missing or questionable data or made
efforts to improve data quality.
In response, Equitable argued that at the time of the PHMSA inspection, its IMP had not been in
place for a sufficient amount of time for the company to have remedied all of the weaknesses in
existing data. Equitable argued that PHMSA had recognized the initial process of data gathering
was likely to uncover shortcomings.
53 The company further argued that it had taken steps to
improve the quality of its data, both before and after the inspection. Respondent quoted OPS’s
own Violation Report, which stated that “[p]rior to the inspection, Equitable had recognized its
data problem and was undergoing an ‘engineering analysis’ in order to establish transmission
improvements it had made subsequent to the OPS inspection.
system pipeline attributes system wide.”54 Equitable also described the data quality
This quoted statement from the OPS Violation Report is, on its face, inconsistent with the
allegation in the Notice that “the poor quality, or lack of, data needed for threat evaluation and
ECDA was not reviewed nor were any corrective actions taken to improve the quality of the
data.” Neither at the hearing nor in the other documents in the case file did OPS explain this
inconsistency or provide additional evidence to support the allegation in the Notice.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, I find that OPS has failed to meet its burden of proving a
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.911(l) and therefore order that Item 3A be withdrawn.
Item 3B: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911(l), as quoted above,
by failing to perform a quality assurance process on Line H-153 that conformed to ASME/ANSI
B31.8S, section 12, which provides that “when an operator chooses to use outside resources to
conduct any process (for example, pigging) that affects the quality of the integrity management
program, the operator shall ensure control of such processes and document them within the
quality program.” Specifically, the Notice alleged that Equitable failed to perform quality
control on the Line H-148 in-line inspection (ILI) results produced by an outside tool vendor.
The Notice further alleged that Equitable improperly used certain “unity charts” by placing two
different sets of H-148 data on one chart that did not adequately evaluate ILI tool vendor
performance.
In response, Equitable argued that it had in fact performed quality control on the ECDA vendor
who performed work on Line H-153 and the ILI vendor who performed work on Line H-148.
The Respondent also provided resumes and operator qualification records for personnel who
performed the ECDA on H-153 and the ILI on H-148, but failed to demonstrate how such
records related to an effective quality control program. Regarding H-148, Equitable contended
that it did not use the unity charts to confirm ILI vendor data and performance, but instead used
them to compare ILI data spreadsheets with verification dig data. Equitable did not submit
copies of these spreadsheets.
53 Closing at 35, citing PHMSA Gas IMP Frequently Asked Question #222: Gathering Information from Entire
Pipeline (Sept. 19, 2004).
54 Closing at 34, citing OPS Violation Report at 5.



20
On the other hand, OPS failed to present sufficient evidence as to what quality assurance
measures were missing from Equitable’s quality assurance checks of its outside consultants and
vendors. Similarly, the agency neither included the unity charts as part of the Violation Report
or as evidence at the hearing, nor did the agency establish why it was improper to place two sets
of data on the same chart. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, I find that OPS has failed to
meet its burden of proving a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.911(l) and therefore order that Item 3B
be withdrawn.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I
must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,
including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history
of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s ability to pay the penalty and any effect that
the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent
in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the
economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent
damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil
penalty of $296,400 for the violations cited above.
As noted above, I have withdrawn Items 1B, 1D, 1E, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2E, 2F, 2H, 2I, 3A and 3B. As
a result, the proposed penalties associated with those Items are also withdrawn.
Item 1A: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $3,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.917(b), for failing to include in its IMP a detailed plan for the validation of assumed values
for missing data. As discussed above, certain allegations in the Notice for Item 1A have been
withdrawn. The withdrawal of these allegations reduces the gravity of the violation and warrants
a commensurate reduction in the civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and
considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $1,550 for Item
1A.
Item 1C: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $8,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.917(b), for failing to maintain accurate pipe characteristics data in its IMP. In its Closing,
Respondent argued that although it had incorrectly listed the grade pipe for Line H-127 in its
data-gathering spreadsheet, it had used the correct pipe grade when it risk-ranked the line. The
record indicates that Equitable made an inadvertent data entry error, with a limited effect on
pipeline safety. A reduction in the civil penalty is therefore warranted on that basis.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $4,050 for Item 1C.
Item 2D: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $20,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(1), for failing to document the basis on which it selected at least two
different, but complementary, indirect assessment tools to assess each ECDA region.
Respondent argued that the penalty was unjustified on the basis of its indirect assessment efforts.
However, Equitable failed to properly document the basis for the indirect assessment tools
actually used on Line H-153. The company presented no information that would warrant a



21
reduction in the civil penalty for this Item. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and
considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $20,600 for Item 2D.
Item 2G: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $20,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(2), for failing to perform an alignment and comparison of ECDA inspection
tool results. As discussed above, Respondent’s efforts at alignment and comparison of ECDA
data failed to comply with the regulation and its own procedures. While a portion of this
allegation in Item 2G was withdrawn, such withdrawal does not reduce the gravity of the
violation and does not warrant reduction of the civil penalty. Furthermore, Respondent
presented no information that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty for this Item.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $20,600 for Item 2G.
Item 2J: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $20,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49
C.F.R. §§ 192.917(e)(1) and 192.925(b)(2), for failing to address encroachment, one-call, and
third-party damage data in its IMP pre-assessment process. As discussed above, I found that
Equitable failed to have an adequate process for integrating and analyzing such data and that it
failed to perform such an analysis for Line H-153. Respondent presented no information that
would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty for this Item. Accordingly, having reviewed the
record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $20,600 for
Item 2J.
Item 2K: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $20,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(3), for failing to include in its ECDA plan the criteria and notification
procedures for any changes in the plan, including changes that would affect the severity
classification, the priority of direct examination, and the time frame for direct examination of
indications. Equitable argued that a penalty was not appropriate for this Item because of
disagree. The requirement to have a procedure for notification of any ECDA plan changes is set
out clearly in the regulation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the
considerable uncertainty in the industry regarding how to comply with the new IMP rule.55 I
assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $20,600 for Item 2K.
Item 2L: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $20,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(4), for failing to develop and implement an ECDA plan that included
adequate post-assessment and continuing evaluation procedures. As discussed above, Equitable
was required to incorporate feedback throughout the ECDA process, not just at the end.
Respondent presented no information that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty for this
Item. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $20,600.
In summary, I assess Respondent a reduced total civil penalty of $108,600.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal
55 Closing at 32.



22
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.
Failure to pay the $108,600 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual
rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United
States District Court.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 2A, 2B, 2C,
2D, 2E, 2F, 2G, 2H, 2I, 2J, 2K, 2L, 3A, and 3B in the Notice for violations of 49 C.F.R. Part
192. I have withdrawn several of these Items. The remaining compliance order requirements are
set out below.
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns
or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards
established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the
pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 192.917(b) (Item 1A), Respondent
must confirm or validate assumed or unverified pipeline data (for the set
of data that was assumed, or unverified, or based on the personal
recollection of the analyst). Until data is confirmed or validated,
Respondent must make conservative assumptions when performing the
risk assessment.
2. With respect to the violation of § 192.917(b) (Item 1C), Respondent
must perform quality checks or otherwise verify or correct erroneous
pipeline characteristics data for all covered segments.
3. With respect to the violation of § 192.925(b)(1) (Item 2D), Respondent
must document the basis for its selection of indirect examination tools that
are actually used when conducting ECDA integrity assessments, for both
completed and future assessments. The documentation must include a
justification for using different tools than the ones selected during the pre-
assessment step.
4. With respect to the violation of § 192.925(b)(2) (Item 2G), Respondent
must establish and apply criteria for the alignment and comparison of



23
indirect examination results with completed ECDA examinations and
future assessments.
5. With respect to the violation of § 192.917(e)(1) and § 192.925(b)(2)
(Item 2J), Respondent must integrate and analyze encroachment, one-call
and third-party damage data in the ECDA pre-assessment step and when
evaluating tool results. Equitable must integrate such data and perform
an analysis for completed ECDA examinations and future assessments.
6. With respect to the violation of § 192.925(b)(3) (Item 2K),
Respondent must develop and implement the criteria and notification
procedures for any changes it makes in its ECDA plan on the basis of
direct assessment findings.
7. With respect to the violation of § 192.925(b)(4) (Item 2L), Respondent
must develop and implement criteria to document feedback from lessons
learned during each step in the ECDA process and to use such feedback in
subsequent ECDA assessments.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent demonstrating good cause for an extension.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not
to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the
Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.
WARNING ITEM
With respect to Item 2M, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 192 but did not propose
a civil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning
item. The warning was for:
49 C.F.R. § 192.927(b) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to develop an Internal Corrosion
Direct Assessment (ICDA) plan applicable to wet gas systems, or to specify a different,
suitable assessment method capable of assessing internal corrosion threats in wet gas
systems.
In its Response, Equitable explained that it had no plans to use Direct Assessment to assess any
of its wet gas pipelines and therefore § 192.927(b) was not applicable. Having considered such
information, I agree and therefore order that Item 2M be withdrawn.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of
this Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline
Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC
20590. A copy of the petition should also be sent to: Assistant Chief Counsel for Pipeline Safety,
PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590.



24
PHMSA will accept petitions received within 20 days of Respondent’s receipt of this Final
Order, provided that they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements
of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil
penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all other terms
and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon receipt of service.
___________________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

## Provenance

- Official: Yes
- Source: <https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120061006>
- Source ID: `phmsa-enforcement`
- SHA-256: `60d93d95ceae848ff16bc17d57281462ca85f49e88e88fcdb9fc33ff2e3e71a8`
- Retrieved: 2026-08-20T04:44:44.458Z
- Exported: 2026-08-22T22:25:39.621Z
- Document slug: `phmsa-enforcement-120061006`

### Source metadata

```json
{
  "cpf": "120061006",
  "operator": "EQUITABLE GAS COMPANY, LLC",
  "region": "Eastern",
  "pipelineType": "GAS INTERSTATE ONSHORE",
  "caseStatus": "CLOSED",
  "citedSections": [
    "192.911(l)",
    "192.917(b)",
    "192.925(b)(1)",
    "192.925(b)(2)",
    "192.925(b)(3)",
    "192.925(b)(4)",
    "192.927(b)"
  ],
  "dataAsOf": "08/04/2026 12PM",
  "caseDataAsOf": "2026-08-04",
  "attachmentCount": 4,
  "attachments": [
    {
      "name": "120061006_Closure Letter_02072011.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120061006/120061006_Closure%20Letter_02072011.pdf",
      "bytes": 258719,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "120061006_Closure Letter_02072011_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120061006/120061006_Closure%20Letter_02072011_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 20991,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "120061006_FinalOrder_05132010.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120061006/120061006_FinalOrder_05132010.pdf",
      "bytes": 1390759,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "120061006_FinalOrder_05132010_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120061006/120061006_FinalOrder_05132010_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 162490,
      "category": "agency_document"
    }
  ],
  "extractedAgencyDocumentCount": 2,
  "attachmentPolicy": "Official attachment links are retained. Agency-issued documents may also include a verified local PDF and page-level text representation.",
  "jurisdiction": "US",
  "operatorName": "EQUITABLE GAS COMPANY, LLC"
}
```