{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120051007","title":"TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2005-12-29","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.605(a), 192.605(b)(3), 192.614(c)(5), 192.614(c)(6)(i), 192.805(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120051007.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120051007.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120051007","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120051007","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.605(a),  192.605(b)(3),  192.614(c)(5),  192.614(c)(6)(i),  192.805(b). The case was opened on 2005-12-29 and is reported as closed as of 2013-04-22. Proposed civil penalty: $600,000. Assessed civil penalty: $190,385. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120051007_Closure Letter_04222013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120051007/120051007_Closure%20Letter_04222013.pdf\n\n120051007_Closure Letter_04222013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120051007/120051007_Closure%20Letter_04222013_text.pdf\n\n120051007_Consent Agreement and Order_01162009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120051007/120051007_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_01162009.pdf\n\n120051007_Consent Agreement and Order_01162009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120051007/120051007_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_01162009_text.pdf\n\n120051007_FinalOrder_07302007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120051007/120051007_FinalOrder_07302007.pdf\n\n120051007_finalorder_07302007_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120051007/120051007_finalorder_07302007_text.pdf\n\n120051007_Operator Response_01142009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120051007/120051007_Operator%20Response_01142009.pdf\n\n120051007_Petition for Reconsideration_8202007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120051007/120051007_Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_8202007.pdf\n\n120051007_Settlement Case Overview_01162009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120051007/120051007_Settlement%20Case%20Overview_01162009.pdf\n\n120051007_Settlement Case Overview_01162009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120051007/120051007_Settlement%20Case%20Overview_01162009_text.pdf\n\n120051007_Consent Agreement and Order_01162009_text.pdf\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\n____________________________________\n)\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nWilliams Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, ) CPF No. 1-2005-1007\n)\nRespondent. )\n)\n___________________________________ )\nCONSENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER\nWHEREAS, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), initiated the above-captioned proceeding against Williams Gas Pipeline\nCompany, LLC (Williams or Respondent), for enforcement of the Pipeline Safety\nregulations, 49 C.F.R. Part 192, specifically including requirements for preventing\nexcavation-related damage to natural gas pipeline facilities; and\nWHEREAS, the enforcement action arose out of PHMSA’s investigation of an\nOctober 3, 2005, incident in which a backhoe operated by a Williams contractor struck\nWilliams’ active 36-inch gas transmission pipeline in Chantilly, Virginia, thereby causing\na release of natural gas and requiring the evacuation of a nearby school and homes; and\nWHEREAS, PHMSA issued a Notice of Probable Violation (Notice), dated\nDecember 29, 2005, alleging that Williams violated various provisions of 49 C.F.R. Part\n192 and proposing (1) the assessment of civil penalties totaling $600,000; and (2) the\nentry of a compliance order requiring Williams to take certain measures to bring its safety\nprocedures and operations into compliance with PHMSA regulations; and\nWHEREAS, Williams requested an administrative hearing, which was held on\nJune 13, 2006, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, at which Williams and PHMSA\n(collectively, Parties) presented evidence and legal argument in response to the Notice;\nand\n- 1 -\n\n\n\nWHEREAS, on July 30, 2007, PHMSA issued a Final Order, pursuant to 49\nU.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, finding that Williams violated 49\nC.F.R. §§ 192.605, 192.614, and 192.805(b), assessing civil penalties in the sum of\n$590,385.00, and ordering Williams to take various corrective actions (Final Order); and\nWHEREAS, on August 29, 2007, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Williams\nfiled a petition for reconsideration with PHMSA (Petition); and\nWHEREAS, Williams has satisfactorily completed all corrective actions required\nunder the Final Order, including requirements related to its damage prevention program;\nand\nWHEREAS, Williams is taking additional actions on a voluntary basis\n(independently of requirements in this or any other enforcement action) to prevent\nexcavation-related damage to its pipeline systems and to promote nationwide damage\nprevention efforts, including: (1) preparing and disseminating educational materials to\ninform Williams employees of the October 3, 2005, incident and the company’s\ncommitment to improving its damage-prevention efforts; (2) developing and\nimplementing a school-based damage prevention outreach campaign targeting\ncommunities in proximity to Williams’ pipelines; (3) developing and pilot-testing a three-\npart “Adopt a Community” program in one or more Virginia jurisdictions, to enhance\ncommunication among Williams, builders, first responders, and other local officials about\ndevelopment and excavation near pipelines and to enhance communication during\nemergencies; and (4) actively participating in and supporting programs and damage\nprevention activities of the Common Ground Alliance, including the development and\npromotion of best practices; and\nWHEREAS, in order to settle the above-captioned enforcement action, Williams\nis prepared to undertake specific additional projects (as described more fully below and\nin Appendix Three hereto), to reduce the risk of excavation-related damage to its pipeline\nfacilities; and\nWHEREAS, PHMSA has determined that the projects subject to this Consent\nAgreement and Order (as described in Appendix Three hereto) will improve Williams’\ndamage prevention program and otherwise assist in reducing the risk of future\nexcavation-related damage to Williams’ pipelines; that said projects entail performance\nmeasures exceeding current requirements under 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and 49 C.F.R.\nPart 192; that said projects offer valuable public safety benefits over and above activities\nthat could otherwise be mandated under the Pipeline Safety laws and regulations; and that\nthis Consent Agreement and Order will otherwise advance PHMSA’s enforcement goals;\nand\nWHEREAS, Williams and PHMSA have agreed to the entry of this Consent\nAgreement and Order, without further administrative proceedings or litigation, in order to\nresolve this enforcement action;\n- 2 -\n\n\n\nNOW, THEREFORE, without further proceedings and upon the consent and\nagreement of the Parties, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged as follows:\nI. General Provisions\n.\n1. This Consent Agreement and Order shall apply to and be binding upon\nRespondent, its officers, directors, employees, successors and assigns, including, but not\nlimited to, subsequent purchasers.\n2. Respondent stipulates that PHMSA has jurisdiction over the subject matter\nalleged in the Notice and Final Order, a copy of said Final Order being incorporated\nherein by reference and attached hereto as Appendix One. Respondent waives any\ndefenses that it may have as to jurisdiction and venue, and, without admitting or denying\nthe allegations set forth in the Notice and the findings set forth in the Final Order,\nconsents to the terms of this Consent Agreement and Order. By the entry of this Consent\nAgreement and Order, PHMSA neither vacates nor withdraws the Final Order issued\nherein. All provisions of the Final Order, except as modified by this Consent Agreement\nand Order, shall remain in full force and effect. Copies of both the Final Order and this\nConsent Agreement and Order shall be included among PHMSA’s public enforcement\ndocuments. Nothing in this Consent Agreement and Order shall bar consideration of the\nfindings of violations set forth in the Final Order as prior offenses in any future\nenforcement action brought by PHMSA against Williams.\n3. This Consent Agreement and Order constitutes a settlement of the Petition filed\nin this proceeding. Respondent hereby waives its right to any further judicial or\nadministrative hearing or appeal on any aspect of law or fact set forth in the Notice or\nFinal Order.\nII. Regulatory Compliance\n.\n4. PHMSA has reviewed the actions taken and the information submitted by\nRespondent pursuant to the Compliance Order contained in the Final Order and attached\nhereto as part of Appendix One. PHMSA has determined that Williams has satisfactorily\ncomplied with all terms of the Compliance Order. Accordingly, the Compliance Order is\nnow closed.\n5. This Consent Agreement and Order shall not relieve Respondent of its\nobligation to comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local law, nor be\nconstrued to constitute a ruling on, or determination of, any issue related to any federal,\nstate or local permit, nor constitute PHMSA approval of any equipment, test, or\nprocedure installed or used by Williams in connection with any project or work\nundertaken pursuant to this Consent Agreement and Order.\n6. Nothing in this Consent Agreement and Order shall limit or bar PHMSA\nfrom taking any action to address any future violation of 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., any\n- 3 -\n\n\n\nregulation promulgated thereunder, or any hazardous situation that may arise with respect\nto pipeline facilities owned or operated by Respondent.\nIII. Civil Penalties.\n7. Williams shall pay civil penalties totaling $190,385.00, corresponding as\nfollows to the amounts assessed in the Final Order:\nA. $90,385.00, as assessed in Item 1(A-D) of the Final Order, for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a); and\nB. $100,000.00, in lieu of the assessments in Items 2, 3, and 4 of the Final\nOrder, for violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.605, 192.614, and 192.805(b).\n8. The terms of payment shall be the same as those set forth in the Final Order,\nexcept that the total civil penalty of $190,385.00 shall be payable within twenty (20) days\nfrom the date of execution of this Consent Agreement and Order.\n9. The total amount specified in Paragraph 8 above represents civil penalties\nassessed by PHMSA and shall not be deductible by Respondent or any of its affiliates or\nsubsidiaries for purposes of Federal taxes.\nIV. Safety Projects.\n10. Williams shall undertake and complete the following two safety projects\n(collectively, Projects), which the parties agree are intended to improve the safety\nperformance of Williams by reducing the risk of future excavation-related incidents along\nWilliams’ rights-of-way throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia:\nA. Virginia GPS Cell Phone Locator Pilot Project (Virginia Phase I\nProject)\n– This large-scale pilot project will test the effectiveness of providing\nglobal positioning system (GPS)- enabled cell phones to Williams’ employees and\nother excavators in 16 counties traversed by Williams’ five gas transmission\npipelines in Virginia. (See Appendix Two for map of jurisdictions affected by this\nproject.) These cell-phone locators will be used to improve the accuracy of locate\nrequests submitted by excavators to the Virginia One-Call center. Williams shall\ncomplete the Virginia Phase I Project in accordance with the Scope of Work and\nSchedule attached hereto as Appendix Three and incorporated herein by\nreference.\nThe total expenditure for the Virginia Phase I Project shall be not less than\n$300,000.00, and shall be spent in accordance with the specifications set forth in\nAppendix Three. Under no circumstances shall Williams receive credit toward its\nobligation to spend not less than $300,000.00 by charging for the labor of its own\nemployees, equipment, overhead, or other similar internal costs. If the cost of\ncompleting the work described in Appendix Three exceeds $300,000.00, Williams\n- 4 -\n\n\n\nagrees to bear such additional costs and to complete all of the work as described\ntherein.\nB. Virginia GPS Locator Technology Pilot Project (Virginia Phase II\nProject) – The purpose of this project is to apply GPS technology to improve the\nfacility-locating process and to improve the response and information resulting\nfrom facility locates. This technology will create an electronic manifest for\nexcavators and utility operators, providing a site overview and correction data for\nutility mapping, along with immediate posting of positive response data. The\nproject will employ technologies for precisely locating the pipeline in GPS\ncoordinates and will evaluate the application of GPS and enhanced mapping\ntechnology to improve the underground facility locating process. Williams\nemployees assigned to locate the company’s underground facilities will\nparticipate in the project by using the GPS-enabled locators on the Williams\npipeline right-of-way to precisely locate, map, and communicate the location of\nWilliams’ pipelines within the same geographic area as that described above.\nWilliams shall complete the Virginia Phase II Project in accordance with the\nScope of Work and Schedule attached hereto as Appendix Three and incorporated\nherein by reference.\nThe total expenditure for the Virginia Phase II Project shall be not less than\n$262,500.00, and shall be spent in accordance with the specifications set forth in\nAppendix Three. Under no circumstances shall Williams receive credit toward its\nobligation to spend not less than $262,500.00 by charging for the labor of its own\nemployees, equipment, overhead, or other similar internal costs. If the cost of\ncompleting the work described in Appendix Three exceeds $262,500.00, Williams\nagrees to bear such additional costs and to complete all of the work as described\ntherein.\n11. The Scope of Work and Schedule for the Projects described in Paragraph 10\nabove are more fully described in a document submitted by Williams to PHMSA, dated\nJanuary 9, 2009, entitled “Project Proposal – Williams Gas Pipeline, Williams Gas\nPipeline Sponsorship of Phase I and II Statewide Expansion of the Virginia Pilot\nProgram,” which is incorporated herein by reference. In the event of any conflict\nbetween such document and this Consent Agreement and Order, the latter shall control.\n12. The Manager, as identified in Paragraph 13 below, shall have the authority,\nafter consultation with Williams and the Director, Eastern Region, PHMSA Office of\nPipeline Safety (OPS), to require any reasonable modifications to the Projects that the\nManager deems necessary to accomplish the purposes and intent of this Consent\nAgreement and Order.\nV. Documentation and Verification of Work and Expenses\n.\n13. Commencing ninety (90) days after the execution date of this Consent\nAgreement and Order and continuing every ninety (90) days thereafter until the Projects\n- 5 -\n\n\n\nCompletion Report has been filed and accepted by PHMSA, Williams shall submit\nquarterly progress reports to PHMSA describing all work that has been performed\npursuant to Appendix Three during the preceding quarter and the safety impacts and\nimplications of the Projects to date. All reports, including the Projects Completion Report\ndescribed in Paragraph 14 below, shall be submitted to Mr. Sam Hall, Senior Program\nManager (Manager), Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 2180 Adventure Lane, Maidens,\nVirginia 23102, by first class mail. As the person responsible for monitoring\nRespondent’s compliance with the terms of this Consent Agreement and Order, the\nManager may request any additional documentation, studies, or reports reasonably\nnecessary to verify compliance with the terms hereof.\n14. Within ninety (90) days after completion of all the work specified in\nAppendix Three, Williams shall file a Projects Completion Report with the Manager.\nSaid report shall contain, at minimum, the following information:\ni. A detailed description of the Projects, as implemented;\nii. A description and analysis of the benefits of, and problems encountered\nduring, the Projects (including a quantification of the damage prevention\nbenefits, if feasible);\niii. The itemized costs of each Project;\niv. Certification that the Projects have been implemented pursuant to the\nprovisions of this Consent Agreement and Order;\n15. In submitting all reports under this Section V, Williams shall provide\nacceptable documentation for all eligible Project costs. If the Projects Completion Report\nincludes costs not eligible for credit under this Consent Agreement and Order, such costs\nshall be clearly identified as non-eligible expenses. For purposes of this Paragraph,\n“acceptable documentation” includes invoices, purchase orders, or other documentation\nthat specifically identifies and itemizes the individual costs of the goods and/or services\nfor which payment is being made. Canceled drafts do not constitute acceptable\ndocumentation unless such drafts specifically identify and itemize the individual costs of\nthe goods and/or services for which payment is being made.\n16. PHMSA shall have the right to inspect the records and facilities of Williams\nor any contractor or agent thereof upon reasonable notice, to confirm that the Projects are\nbeing undertaken in conformity with the terms of this Consent Agreement and Order.\n17. Williams shall maintain legible copies of all documentation of the underlying\nresearch and data for any and all documents or reports submitted to PHMSA pursuant to\nthis Consent Agreement and Order and shall provide the documentation of any such\nunderlying research and data to PHMSA within seven (7) days of any written request\nfrom PHMSA. Such documentation shall be retained for a period of at least five (5) years\nfrom the date of submission of the Projects Completion Reports required under Paragraph\n14 above. All reports required under this Consent Agreement and Order shall include a\ncertification signed by Williams’ president or other executive officer, verifying, under\n- 6 -\n\n\n\npenalty of law, that the information and representations contained in such report are true,\naccurate, and complete. Such certification shall include the following statement:\nI certify under penalty of law that I have examined and am familiar\nwith the information submitted in this document and all attachments\nand that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately\nresponsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the\ninformation is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are\nsignificant penalties for submitting false information, including the\npossibility of fines and imprisonment.\nVI. PHMSA Acceptance of Projects Completion Report.\n18. Upon review of the Projects Completion Report described in Paragraph 14\nabove, PHMSA shall provide Respondent with written notice of its determination\nwhether to accept the report, stating either: (1) that there are certain deficiencies in the\nProjects Completion Report and that Respondent will be afforded additional time to\ncorrect them; (2) that the Projects have been satisfactorily completed; or (3) that the\nProjects have not been satisfactorily completed and that PHMSA seeks stipulated\npenalties in accordance with Paragraph 19 below.\nIn the event PHMSA exercises option (1) above (i.e., if it determines that the Projects\nCompletion Report is deficient), Respondent may file a written objection to the\ndeficiency determination within ten (10) days from receipt of the notice. Thereafter,\nPHMSA and Respondent shall have an additional thirty (30) days to reach agreement on\nchanges necessary to the Projects Completion Report. If agreement cannot be reached on\nany such issue within this 30-day period, PHMSA shall provide a written statement of its\ndecision on adequacy of completion of the Projects Completion Report to Respondent,\nwhich decision shall be final and binding upon Respondent. Williams agrees to comply\nwith any requirements imposed by PHMSA as a result of Williams’ failure to comply\nwith the terms of this Consent Agreement and Order.\nVII. Stipulated Penalties\n.\n19. If Williams fails to comply with any of the terms of this Consent Agreement\nand Order relating to the performance of the Projects, as described above, Williams shall\nbe liable for stipulated penalties according to the following provisions:\nA. For failure to complete the Safety Projects pursuant to this Consent\nAgreement and Order, Williams shall pay a stipulated penalty to the United States\nin the amount of the difference between the total amount of the Projects (i.e.,\n$562,500.00) and the amount of money actually spent by Williams on the Projects\nand verified by PHMSA; such stipulated penalty shall be in addition to the total\ncivil penalty payments (i.e., $190,385.00) due and payable under Paragraph 7\nabove. For purposes of this Paragraph, the determination of whether the Projects,\n- 7 -\n\n\n\nor any portion thereof, have been satisfactorily completed shall be in the sole\ndiscretion of PHMSA.\nB. For failure to submit any quarterly progress report or the Projects\nCompletion Report described in Paragraphs 13 and 14 above, Williams shall pay\na stipulated penalty in the amount of $300.00 for each day after such report was\noriginally due until the report is submitted.\nC. Stipulated penalties under this Paragraph shall begin to accrue on the\nday after performance is due, and shall continue to accrue through the final day of\ncompletion of the activity.\nD. Respondent shall pay any stipulated penalties not more than fifteen\n(15) days after receipt of written demand by PHMSA for such penalties. Method\nof payment shall be the same as those set forth in the Final Order.\nE. Nothing in this Consent Agreement and Order shall be construed as\nprohibiting, altering or otherwise limiting the ability of PHMSA to seek any other\nremedies or sanctions available to the agency by virtue of Williams’ violation of\nthis Consent Agreement and Order or of any statutes and regulations upon which\nthis Consent Agreement and Order is based, or any other applicable provision of\nlaw.\nVIII. Representations by Williams.\n20. Williams makes the following representations and promises concerning\nthis Consent Agreement and Order:\nA. Williams certifies that it is not required to perform or develop the\nProjects, or any portions thereof, set forth in this Consent Agreement and Order\nby any federal, state or local law or regulation, nor is Williams required to\nperform or develop the Projects by any other agreement, contract, grant, or as\ninjunctive relief in this or any other proceeding. Williams further certifies that it\nhas not received, and is not presently negotiating to receive, credit in any other\nenforcement action for the Projects outlined above.\nB. Williams hereby agrees not to claim any funds expended in\nperformance of the Projects as a deductible business expense for purposes of\nFederal taxes.\nIX. Release; Miscellaneous\n.\n21. This Consent Agreement and Order constitutes a settlement by PHMSA of\nall pending claims for civil penalties arising out of violations of the Federal pipeline\nsafety laws and regulations, as set forth in the Notice and Final Order. Nothing in this\nConsent Agreement and Order is intended, nor shall be construed, to operate in any way\n- 8 -\n\n\n\nto resolve any criminal liability of Williams. Compliance with this Consent Agreement\nand Order shall not be a defense to any action subsequently commenced by PHMSA\npursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws or regulations, and it is the responsibility of\nWilliams to comply with such laws and regulations at all times.\n22. Each undersigned representative of the Parties certifies that he is fully\nauthorized by the party represented to enter into the terms and conditions hereof and to\nexecute and legally bind that party to it.\n23. This Consent Agreement and Order constitutes the entire agreement of the\nParties and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements, understandings,\nnegotiations and discussions between the Parties, whether oral or written, with respect to\nthe subject matter herein. The terms of this Consent Agreement and Order control in the\nevent of any inconsistency with the record in this proceeding.\n24. Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, this Consent Agreement\nand Order shall terminate upon PHMSA’s written acceptance and approval of the\nProjects Completion Report submitted pursuant to Paragraph 14 above.\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\n___________________________ ______________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety\n___________________________ ______________________\nPhillip Wright, President Date\nWilliams Gas Pipeline Company, LLC\n- 9 -\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX ONE-FINAL ORDER\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nMatorials Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous\nAdministration\nJUL 3 O 2007\nMr. Randy Barnard\n/ice President, Operations and Gas Control\nVilliams Gas Pipeline-Transa\n2800 Post Oak Boulevard\nHouston, TX 77056\nRE: CPF No. 1-2005-1007\nDear Mr. Barnard:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety\nin the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation, requires certain corrective actions,\nSincerely,\nJan th\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nMr. Donald E. Hockaday, III, Senior Attorney\nByron Coy, Director, OPS Eastern Region\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n- 10 -\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\nAKA Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation,\nWILLIAMS GAS PIPELINE - TRANSCO,\n)\nCPF No. 1-2005-1007\nRespondent.\n)\n)\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween October 4-17, 2005, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nconducted an on-site investigation of the pipeline facilities of Williams Gas Pipeline - Transco\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety (\"OPS\"), Eastern Region,\n(\"Williams\" or \"Respondent\") in Chantilly, Virginia, in response to an incident occurring on\nThe incident occurred in a populated area near an elementary school, located in a Class 3, High\nOctober 3, 2005, during the excavation and physical inspection of one of Respondent's pipelines.\nand punctured an active 36-inch gas transmission line, resulting in the evacuation of more than\nConsequence Area. During the excavation work, Respondent's contract backhoe operator struck\n850 schoolchildren and area residents. No fatalities, injuries, or property losses were reported.\nPursuant to the subsequent OPS inspection and investigation, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS,\nissued to Respondent, by letter dated December 29, 2005, a Notice of Probable Violation\nProposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (\"Notice\"). In accordance with 45\nC.P.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed (1) finding that Respondent had committed violations of\n(3) ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\n49 C.F.R. Part 192, (2) assessing a total civil penalty of $600,000 for the alleged violations, and\ncontested several allegations, submitted information and exhibits in support of its position, and\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated, January 27, 2006 (\"Response\"). Respondent\nrequested mitigation of the proposed penalty. Respondent also requested a hearing. A hearing\nwas subsequently held on June 13, 2006, in Washington, D.C., with Renita K. Bivins of the\ndated July 20, 2006.\nOffice of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. Respondent provided a post-hearing submission\n- 11 -\n\n\n\n:\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\n-2-\nItem 1(A) in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), which\nprovides:\n§192.605. Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline,\na manual of written procedures for conducting operations and\nmaintenance activities and for emergency response.\nItem 1(A) alleged that Respondent failed to follow a portion of its own operations and\n5.2.2, Ditching Existing Pipelines. \" That procedure states:\nmaintenance manual entitled, \"Onshore Pipeline Construction Specification 90.05.00: Subpart\nSide-cutting teeth shall be removed from buckets of excavating\nequipment. A steel bar shall be welded across the digging teeth.\nbackhoe bucket and that such failure contributed to the puncture of the pipeline (\"Line C\"),\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to cover or remove the side-cutting teeth of the\nthe incident, an OPS inspector took photos of the backhoe and submitted them into the record.\nwhich was in service at the time of the incident and operating at about 600 psig. On the date of\nThe photos show the backhoe bucket with no steel bar across the digging teeth and teeth marks\non Line C. Respondent neither disputed this allegation nor provided evidence to demonstrate\nmitigating factors. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by\nfailing to follow for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and\nmaintenance and for emergencies.\nItem 1(B) in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), as quoted\nabove, by failing to follow another section of its operations and maintenance manual entitled,\n\"Onshore\nPipelines,\" which states:\nPipeline Construction Specification 90.05.00, Subpart 5.2.3, Ditching Existing\n5 feet of the staked location until the pipeline has been physically located\nMachine excavation of in-service pipelines shall not be permitted within\npipeline facility by hand, machine excavation within 2 feet shall not be\nby hand unless otherwise approved by the Company. After locating the\npermitted. Final excavation shall be by hand.\nItem 1(B) alleged that on the date of the accident, Respondent failed to follow Subpart 5.2.3 by\nnot hand digging within two feet of another of Respondent's pipelines, known as \"Line A,\"\nwhich had been \"blown down\" for inspection purposes and was out of service at the time. A\nsuspected anomaly had been identified near the bottom (6 o'clock position) of Line A. As the\nbackhoe dug below the bottom of Line A, it punctured Respondent's in-service pipeline, Line C.\nexcavation within two feet of an in-service pipeline resulted in the puncture of Line C.\nOPS alleged that Respondent's failure to follow its own procedures prohibiting machine\n- 12 -\n\n\n\nDuring the hearing and in its Post-Hearing Brief, Respondent acknowledged that it did no 3.\nhand dig within two feet of Line A but contended that Specification 90.05.00, Subpart 5.2.3,\napplied only to lines that were in service at the time of excavation. Therefore, because Line A\nor 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a).\nwas out of service at the time, Respondent contended that it had not violated its own procedures\nRespondent is technically correct in stating that the first sentence of Item 1(B) alleged a failure to\nfailed to hand dig within two feet of the in-service Line C. Respondent has admitted failing to\nexcavate by hand within two feet of this in-service line.\nProceedings under 49 C.F.R. Part 190 do not require strict pleading as at English common law.\nThere is no question but that the facts alleged in Item 1(B), when read as a whole, constitute a\nviolation of Respondent's own procedures requiring hand digging within two feet of an in-\nservice line. Just because the in-service line that was struck happened to be Line C, rather than\nown procedures for hand digging within two feet of an in-service pipeline.\nLine A, makes no difference for purposes of this proceeding. Respondent has still violated its\nBased upon the foregoing, I find that Respondent violated its own manual of written procedures,\n\"Onshore Pipeline Construction Specification 90.05.00, Section 5.2 Existing Pipelines,\" and\nspecifically, Section 5.2.3, which prohibits machine excavation within two feet of an in-service\nline. I find that the backhoe operator hired by Respondent excavated by machine within two feet\nof both Line A and Line C, the latter being an active line, that the operator struck Line C\nmultiple times, and that he eventually punctured Line C. Accordingly, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow for each pipeline, a manual of written\nprocedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency response.\nItem 1(C) in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), as quoted\nabove, by failing to follow the operator's own procedures entitled, \"As-Built Survey\nSpecification 75.0503.01, Subpart 2.9.3,\" which states:\nIt will be the responsibility of construction inspectors to assist\nlocation of the Company's existing facilities.\nthe construction Contractor in verifying the survey party's staked\nItem 1(C) alleged that Respondent's inspectors violated this specification by failing to review the\ncompany's as-built drawings with the construction contractor, by failing to verify the existence\nof the crossover of Line A and Line C, and by failing to make the as-built drawings available to\nthe contractor on site, either prior to or during the excavation activity leading up to the October\n3, 2005 accident.\n- 13-\n\n\n\n- 4-\notio for use be aprop ate operating person quetion hold no be read as roguing.\nas-built drawings to be provided to equipment operators, as suggested by OPS at the hearing.\nRather, the company's standard practice is:\n\"to provide as-built drawings to the surveyor, who is responsible\nquipment operator is expected to rely on the surveyor's markings\nor marking the pipeline, but not to the equipment operator. Th\nthe surveyor was provided with the drawings, but failed to mark line 'C. \"2\nnot to attempt to interpret the drawings himself. In this case,\nThe real issue presented by Item 1(C) is not whether Respondent's procedures required the as-\nbuilt drawings to be located on site but, rather, whether Respondent's inspectors failed to \"assist\nthe construction Contractor in verifying the survey party's staked location of the Company's\nexisting facilities.\" There is virtually no evidence in the record to show that Respondent's\ninspectors did anything to aid or assist the construction contractor in any meaningful way to\nverify the location of the company's facilities.\nRespondent missed several opportunities to provide meaningful assistance to the contractor. OPS\ntestified that the backhoe operator never attended the pre-construction meeting. Respondent\nRespondent's inspectors did not have as-built drawings on site at the time of the accident, and\nthat the inspectors took no other steps to help the contractor in verifying the location of the lines.\nLastly, OPS staff testified that it is standard industry practice for a pipeline operator's foreman to\ncarry the applicable as-built drawings with him on site during excavation work and to assist the\nRespondent took none of these measures to assist the excavation contractor.\nexcavation crew leader in reviewing and confirming that the lines are properly marked.\nBased upon the foregoing, I find that Respondent violated its own procedure entitled, \"As-Built\nemergencies.\npipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance and for\n2 Post-Hearing Brief, at p. 3.\n' This defense is discussed more fully below. See Item 2.\n3 \"Williams Gas Pipeline Pennsboro Incident, October 3, 2005,\" at pp. 1-11.\n- 14 -\n\n\n\n- 5-\nItem 1(D) in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), as quoted\nabove, by failing to follow its own procedure entitled, \"Construction Manual, Section 90.05.00,\nSubpart 10, Welding Qualification 10.1.5,\" which states:\nThe radiographic acceptance standard for welder re-qualification\nand for production work shall be API 1104 (latest DOT approved\nedition) unless otherwise specified by the Company.\nSubsection 10.3.27 of the same specification further provides:\nCompany shall have the final decision on weld acceptability. Each\nweld not meeting the acceptability standard shall be repaired or\nreplaced.\nItem 1(D) alleged that one of the welds on the repaired Line C did not pass inspection by one of\nthe Respondent's Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) contract technicians. Nevertheless, one of the\nRespondent's contract welding inspectors overruled the technician and, without proper authority,\naccepted the weld and allowed the pipeline to go back into service with a defective weld. OPS\nalleged that the weld did not meet the Company's radiographic acceptance standard (API\nbefore being repaired by the Respondent.\nStandard 1104) and that the noncompliant weld was placed in service for thirteen (13) days\nRespondent did not dispute the foregoing allegations and confirmed that its welding inspector\ndid not have the authority to overrule the NDT technician without providing weld information to\nRespondent's welding engineers in Houston, who would normally resolve any disputed welds.\nRespondent further advised that on October 12, 2005, as soon as it discovered the defective weld,\nthe operator reduced the operating pressure to 560 psig (41.33% SMYS), isolated the line, and\ndetermined that the line was safe to operate under the reduced pressure. Unfavorable atmospheric\nconditions prevented the line from being blown down until October 17, at which time the weld\nwas finally repaired.\nI find that the Respondent violated its own Construction Manual, Section 90.05.00, Subpart 10,\nWelding Qualification 10.1.5, which requires all welds to meet API Standard 1104 and the\noperator to make final decisions on weld acceptability. I further find that the noncompliant weld\nensure public safety from the time it discovered the defective weld on October 12 until the weld\nwas allowed to remain in service for 13 days, but that Respondent took reasonable measures to\nwas ultimately repaired on October 17. Based upon such facts, I find that Respondent violated 49\nconducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency response.\nC.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for\nItem 2 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(b)(3), which states:\n§192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each\n- 15-\n\n\n\npipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations\n- 6-\nand maintenance activities and for emergency response....\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required\nfollowing, if applicable, to provide safety during maintenance\ny paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the\nand operations......\n(3) Making construction records, maps, and operating history\navailable to appropriate operating personnel\nItem 2 alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §192.605(b)(3) by failing to follow its own\nrocedures regarding the availability of as-built drawings. The Notice alleged that Respondent'\nwn personnel had informed PHMSA that the company's procedures called for the drawings t\nAccording to Respondent's O&M Policy 10.12.01.05, \"Maintaining and Reviewing Construction\nRecords and Maps,\" Subpart 3.3.1, it was the responsibility of the operator's District Manager to\n[e)nsure the latest revision of maps and drawings are available to\noperating personnel for reference when accomplishing day-to-day\nDuring the hearing and in its post-hearing submission, Respondent contended that neither 49\nC.F.R. § 192.605(b)(3), nor Respondent's own procedure, as quoted above, required such\nrequired \"only that they be made available to the appropriate operating personnel.\"\nto be located on site. On the contrary, Respondent asserted that its procedures\nRespondent argued that the drawings were in fact \"readily available\" for review by the\nconstruction personnel in Respondent's field construction job office located \"a short distance\"\nfrom the work site, but that the construction personnel failed to review them.\nRespondent's procedures clearly designate the company's District Manager as be","truncated":true,"body_characters":128935}