# TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

120051007_Closure Letter_04222013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120051007/120051007_Closure%20Letter_04222013.pdf

120051007_Closure Letter_04222013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120051007/120051007_Closure%20Letter_04222013_text.pdf

120051007_Consent Agreement and Order_01162009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120051007/120051007_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_01162009.pdf

120051007_Consent Agreement and Order_01162009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120051007/120051007_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_01162009_text.pdf

120051007_FinalOrder_07302007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120051007/120051007_FinalOrder_07302007.pdf

120051007_finalorder_07302007_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120051007/120051007_finalorder_07302007_text.pdf

120051007_Operator Response_01142009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120051007/120051007_Operator%20Response_01142009.pdf

120051007_Petition for Reconsideration_8202007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120051007/120051007_Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_8202007.pdf

120051007_Settlement Case Overview_01162009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120051007/120051007_Settlement%20Case%20Overview_01162009.pdf

120051007_Settlement Case Overview_01162009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120051007/120051007_Settlement%20Case%20Overview_01162009_text.pdf

120051007_Consent Agreement and Order_01162009_text.pdf

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, DC 20590
____________________________________
)
)
In the Matter of )
)
Williams Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, ) CPF No. 1-2005-1007
)
Respondent. )
)
___________________________________ )
CONSENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER
WHEREAS, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), initiated the above-captioned proceeding against Williams Gas Pipeline
Company, LLC (Williams or Respondent), for enforcement of the Pipeline Safety
regulations, 49 C.F.R. Part 192, specifically including requirements for preventing
excavation-related damage to natural gas pipeline facilities; and
WHEREAS, the enforcement action arose out of PHMSA’s investigation of an
October 3, 2005, incident in which a backhoe operated by a Williams contractor struck
Williams’ active 36-inch gas transmission pipeline in Chantilly, Virginia, thereby causing
a release of natural gas and requiring the evacuation of a nearby school and homes; and
WHEREAS, PHMSA issued a Notice of Probable Violation (Notice), dated
December 29, 2005, alleging that Williams violated various provisions of 49 C.F.R. Part
192 and proposing (1) the assessment of civil penalties totaling $600,000; and (2) the
entry of a compliance order requiring Williams to take certain measures to bring its safety
procedures and operations into compliance with PHMSA regulations; and
WHEREAS, Williams requested an administrative hearing, which was held on
June 13, 2006, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, at which Williams and PHMSA
(collectively, Parties) presented evidence and legal argument in response to the Notice;
and
- 1 -



WHEREAS, on July 30, 2007, PHMSA issued a Final Order, pursuant to 49
U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, finding that Williams violated 49
C.F.R. §§ 192.605, 192.614, and 192.805(b), assessing civil penalties in the sum of
$590,385.00, and ordering Williams to take various corrective actions (Final Order); and
WHEREAS, on August 29, 2007, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Williams
filed a petition for reconsideration with PHMSA (Petition); and
WHEREAS, Williams has satisfactorily completed all corrective actions required
under the Final Order, including requirements related to its damage prevention program;
and
WHEREAS, Williams is taking additional actions on a voluntary basis
(independently of requirements in this or any other enforcement action) to prevent
excavation-related damage to its pipeline systems and to promote nationwide damage
prevention efforts, including: (1) preparing and disseminating educational materials to
inform Williams employees of the October 3, 2005, incident and the company’s
commitment to improving its damage-prevention efforts; (2) developing and
implementing a school-based damage prevention outreach campaign targeting
communities in proximity to Williams’ pipelines; (3) developing and pilot-testing a three-
part “Adopt a Community” program in one or more Virginia jurisdictions, to enhance
communication among Williams, builders, first responders, and other local officials about
development and excavation near pipelines and to enhance communication during
emergencies; and (4) actively participating in and supporting programs and damage
prevention activities of the Common Ground Alliance, including the development and
promotion of best practices; and
WHEREAS, in order to settle the above-captioned enforcement action, Williams
is prepared to undertake specific additional projects (as described more fully below and
in Appendix Three hereto), to reduce the risk of excavation-related damage to its pipeline
facilities; and
WHEREAS, PHMSA has determined that the projects subject to this Consent
Agreement and Order (as described in Appendix Three hereto) will improve Williams’
damage prevention program and otherwise assist in reducing the risk of future
excavation-related damage to Williams’ pipelines; that said projects entail performance
measures exceeding current requirements under 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and 49 C.F.R.
Part 192; that said projects offer valuable public safety benefits over and above activities
that could otherwise be mandated under the Pipeline Safety laws and regulations; and that
this Consent Agreement and Order will otherwise advance PHMSA’s enforcement goals;
and
WHEREAS, Williams and PHMSA have agreed to the entry of this Consent
Agreement and Order, without further administrative proceedings or litigation, in order to
resolve this enforcement action;
- 2 -



NOW, THEREFORE, without further proceedings and upon the consent and
agreement of the Parties, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged as follows:
I. General Provisions
.
1. This Consent Agreement and Order shall apply to and be binding upon
Respondent, its officers, directors, employees, successors and assigns, including, but not
limited to, subsequent purchasers.
2. Respondent stipulates that PHMSA has jurisdiction over the subject matter
alleged in the Notice and Final Order, a copy of said Final Order being incorporated
herein by reference and attached hereto as Appendix One. Respondent waives any
defenses that it may have as to jurisdiction and venue, and, without admitting or denying
the allegations set forth in the Notice and the findings set forth in the Final Order,
consents to the terms of this Consent Agreement and Order. By the entry of this Consent
Agreement and Order, PHMSA neither vacates nor withdraws the Final Order issued
herein. All provisions of the Final Order, except as modified by this Consent Agreement
and Order, shall remain in full force and effect. Copies of both the Final Order and this
Consent Agreement and Order shall be included among PHMSA’s public enforcement
documents. Nothing in this Consent Agreement and Order shall bar consideration of the
findings of violations set forth in the Final Order as prior offenses in any future
enforcement action brought by PHMSA against Williams.
3. This Consent Agreement and Order constitutes a settlement of the Petition filed
in this proceeding. Respondent hereby waives its right to any further judicial or
administrative hearing or appeal on any aspect of law or fact set forth in the Notice or
Final Order.
II. Regulatory Compliance
.
4. PHMSA has reviewed the actions taken and the information submitted by
Respondent pursuant to the Compliance Order contained in the Final Order and attached
hereto as part of Appendix One. PHMSA has determined that Williams has satisfactorily
complied with all terms of the Compliance Order. Accordingly, the Compliance Order is
now closed.
5. This Consent Agreement and Order shall not relieve Respondent of its
obligation to comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local law, nor be
construed to constitute a ruling on, or determination of, any issue related to any federal,
state or local permit, nor constitute PHMSA approval of any equipment, test, or
procedure installed or used by Williams in connection with any project or work
undertaken pursuant to this Consent Agreement and Order.
6. Nothing in this Consent Agreement and Order shall limit or bar PHMSA
from taking any action to address any future violation of 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., any
- 3 -



regulation promulgated thereunder, or any hazardous situation that may arise with respect
to pipeline facilities owned or operated by Respondent.
III. Civil Penalties.
7. Williams shall pay civil penalties totaling $190,385.00, corresponding as
follows to the amounts assessed in the Final Order:
A. $90,385.00, as assessed in Item 1(A-D) of the Final Order, for
violations of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a); and
B. $100,000.00, in lieu of the assessments in Items 2, 3, and 4 of the Final
Order, for violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.605, 192.614, and 192.805(b).
8. The terms of payment shall be the same as those set forth in the Final Order,
except that the total civil penalty of $190,385.00 shall be payable within twenty (20) days
from the date of execution of this Consent Agreement and Order.
9. The total amount specified in Paragraph 8 above represents civil penalties
assessed by PHMSA and shall not be deductible by Respondent or any of its affiliates or
subsidiaries for purposes of Federal taxes.
IV. Safety Projects.
10. Williams shall undertake and complete the following two safety projects
(collectively, Projects), which the parties agree are intended to improve the safety
performance of Williams by reducing the risk of future excavation-related incidents along
Williams’ rights-of-way throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia:
A. Virginia GPS Cell Phone Locator Pilot Project (Virginia Phase I
Project)
– This large-scale pilot project will test the effectiveness of providing
global positioning system (GPS)- enabled cell phones to Williams’ employees and
other excavators in 16 counties traversed by Williams’ five gas transmission
pipelines in Virginia. (See Appendix Two for map of jurisdictions affected by this
project.) These cell-phone locators will be used to improve the accuracy of locate
requests submitted by excavators to the Virginia One-Call center. Williams shall
complete the Virginia Phase I Project in accordance with the Scope of Work and
Schedule attached hereto as Appendix Three and incorporated herein by
reference.
The total expenditure for the Virginia Phase I Project shall be not less than
$300,000.00, and shall be spent in accordance with the specifications set forth in
Appendix Three. Under no circumstances shall Williams receive credit toward its
obligation to spend not less than $300,000.00 by charging for the labor of its own
employees, equipment, overhead, or other similar internal costs. If the cost of
completing the work described in Appendix Three exceeds $300,000.00, Williams
- 4 -



agrees to bear such additional costs and to complete all of the work as described
therein.
B. Virginia GPS Locator Technology Pilot Project (Virginia Phase II
Project) – The purpose of this project is to apply GPS technology to improve the
facility-locating process and to improve the response and information resulting
from facility locates. This technology will create an electronic manifest for
excavators and utility operators, providing a site overview and correction data for
utility mapping, along with immediate posting of positive response data. The
project will employ technologies for precisely locating the pipeline in GPS
coordinates and will evaluate the application of GPS and enhanced mapping
technology to improve the underground facility locating process. Williams
employees assigned to locate the company’s underground facilities will
participate in the project by using the GPS-enabled locators on the Williams
pipeline right-of-way to precisely locate, map, and communicate the location of
Williams’ pipelines within the same geographic area as that described above.
Williams shall complete the Virginia Phase II Project in accordance with the
Scope of Work and Schedule attached hereto as Appendix Three and incorporated
herein by reference.
The total expenditure for the Virginia Phase II Project shall be not less than
$262,500.00, and shall be spent in accordance with the specifications set forth in
Appendix Three. Under no circumstances shall Williams receive credit toward its
obligation to spend not less than $262,500.00 by charging for the labor of its own
employees, equipment, overhead, or other similar internal costs. If the cost of
completing the work described in Appendix Three exceeds $262,500.00, Williams
agrees to bear such additional costs and to complete all of the work as described
therein.
11. The Scope of Work and Schedule for the Projects described in Paragraph 10
above are more fully described in a document submitted by Williams to PHMSA, dated
January 9, 2009, entitled “Project Proposal – Williams Gas Pipeline, Williams Gas
Pipeline Sponsorship of Phase I and II Statewide Expansion of the Virginia Pilot
Program,” which is incorporated herein by reference. In the event of any conflict
between such document and this Consent Agreement and Order, the latter shall control.
12. The Manager, as identified in Paragraph 13 below, shall have the authority,
after consultation with Williams and the Director, Eastern Region, PHMSA Office of
Pipeline Safety (OPS), to require any reasonable modifications to the Projects that the
Manager deems necessary to accomplish the purposes and intent of this Consent
Agreement and Order.
V. Documentation and Verification of Work and Expenses
.
13. Commencing ninety (90) days after the execution date of this Consent
Agreement and Order and continuing every ninety (90) days thereafter until the Projects
- 5 -



Completion Report has been filed and accepted by PHMSA, Williams shall submit
quarterly progress reports to PHMSA describing all work that has been performed
pursuant to Appendix Three during the preceding quarter and the safety impacts and
implications of the Projects to date. All reports, including the Projects Completion Report
described in Paragraph 14 below, shall be submitted to Mr. Sam Hall, Senior Program
Manager (Manager), Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 2180 Adventure Lane, Maidens,
Virginia 23102, by first class mail. As the person responsible for monitoring
Respondent’s compliance with the terms of this Consent Agreement and Order, the
Manager may request any additional documentation, studies, or reports reasonably
necessary to verify compliance with the terms hereof.
14. Within ninety (90) days after completion of all the work specified in
Appendix Three, Williams shall file a Projects Completion Report with the Manager.
Said report shall contain, at minimum, the following information:
i. A detailed description of the Projects, as implemented;
ii. A description and analysis of the benefits of, and problems encountered
during, the Projects (including a quantification of the damage prevention
benefits, if feasible);
iii. The itemized costs of each Project;
iv. Certification that the Projects have been implemented pursuant to the
provisions of this Consent Agreement and Order;
15. In submitting all reports under this Section V, Williams shall provide
acceptable documentation for all eligible Project costs. If the Projects Completion Report
includes costs not eligible for credit under this Consent Agreement and Order, such costs
shall be clearly identified as non-eligible expenses. For purposes of this Paragraph,
“acceptable documentation” includes invoices, purchase orders, or other documentation
that specifically identifies and itemizes the individual costs of the goods and/or services
for which payment is being made. Canceled drafts do not constitute acceptable
documentation unless such drafts specifically identify and itemize the individual costs of
the goods and/or services for which payment is being made.
16. PHMSA shall have the right to inspect the records and facilities of Williams
or any contractor or agent thereof upon reasonable notice, to confirm that the Projects are
being undertaken in conformity with the terms of this Consent Agreement and Order.
17. Williams shall maintain legible copies of all documentation of the underlying
research and data for any and all documents or reports submitted to PHMSA pursuant to
this Consent Agreement and Order and shall provide the documentation of any such
underlying research and data to PHMSA within seven (7) days of any written request
from PHMSA. Such documentation shall be retained for a period of at least five (5) years
from the date of submission of the Projects Completion Reports required under Paragraph
14 above. All reports required under this Consent Agreement and Order shall include a
certification signed by Williams’ president or other executive officer, verifying, under
- 6 -



penalty of law, that the information and representations contained in such report are true,
accurate, and complete. Such certification shall include the following statement:
I certify under penalty of law that I have examined and am familiar
with the information submitted in this document and all attachments
and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately
responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the
information is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fines and imprisonment.
VI. PHMSA Acceptance of Projects Completion Report.
18. Upon review of the Projects Completion Report described in Paragraph 14
above, PHMSA shall provide Respondent with written notice of its determination
whether to accept the report, stating either: (1) that there are certain deficiencies in the
Projects Completion Report and that Respondent will be afforded additional time to
correct them; (2) that the Projects have been satisfactorily completed; or (3) that the
Projects have not been satisfactorily completed and that PHMSA seeks stipulated
penalties in accordance with Paragraph 19 below.
In the event PHMSA exercises option (1) above (i.e., if it determines that the Projects
Completion Report is deficient), Respondent may file a written objection to the
deficiency determination within ten (10) days from receipt of the notice. Thereafter,
PHMSA and Respondent shall have an additional thirty (30) days to reach agreement on
changes necessary to the Projects Completion Report. If agreement cannot be reached on
any such issue within this 30-day period, PHMSA shall provide a written statement of its
decision on adequacy of completion of the Projects Completion Report to Respondent,
which decision shall be final and binding upon Respondent. Williams agrees to comply
with any requirements imposed by PHMSA as a result of Williams’ failure to comply
with the terms of this Consent Agreement and Order.
VII. Stipulated Penalties
.
19. If Williams fails to comply with any of the terms of this Consent Agreement
and Order relating to the performance of the Projects, as described above, Williams shall
be liable for stipulated penalties according to the following provisions:
A. For failure to complete the Safety Projects pursuant to this Consent
Agreement and Order, Williams shall pay a stipulated penalty to the United States
in the amount of the difference between the total amount of the Projects (i.e.,
$562,500.00) and the amount of money actually spent by Williams on the Projects
and verified by PHMSA; such stipulated penalty shall be in addition to the total
civil penalty payments (i.e., $190,385.00) due and payable under Paragraph 7
above. For purposes of this Paragraph, the determination of whether the Projects,
- 7 -



or any portion thereof, have been satisfactorily completed shall be in the sole
discretion of PHMSA.
B. For failure to submit any quarterly progress report or the Projects
Completion Report described in Paragraphs 13 and 14 above, Williams shall pay
a stipulated penalty in the amount of $300.00 for each day after such report was
originally due until the report is submitted.
C. Stipulated penalties under this Paragraph shall begin to accrue on the
day after performance is due, and shall continue to accrue through the final day of
completion of the activity.
D. Respondent shall pay any stipulated penalties not more than fifteen
(15) days after receipt of written demand by PHMSA for such penalties. Method
of payment shall be the same as those set forth in the Final Order.
E. Nothing in this Consent Agreement and Order shall be construed as
prohibiting, altering or otherwise limiting the ability of PHMSA to seek any other
remedies or sanctions available to the agency by virtue of Williams’ violation of
this Consent Agreement and Order or of any statutes and regulations upon which
this Consent Agreement and Order is based, or any other applicable provision of
law.
VIII. Representations by Williams.
20. Williams makes the following representations and promises concerning
this Consent Agreement and Order:
A. Williams certifies that it is not required to perform or develop the
Projects, or any portions thereof, set forth in this Consent Agreement and Order
by any federal, state or local law or regulation, nor is Williams required to
perform or develop the Projects by any other agreement, contract, grant, or as
injunctive relief in this or any other proceeding. Williams further certifies that it
has not received, and is not presently negotiating to receive, credit in any other
enforcement action for the Projects outlined above.
B. Williams hereby agrees not to claim any funds expended in
performance of the Projects as a deductible business expense for purposes of
Federal taxes.
IX. Release; Miscellaneous
.
21. This Consent Agreement and Order constitutes a settlement by PHMSA of
all pending claims for civil penalties arising out of violations of the Federal pipeline
safety laws and regulations, as set forth in the Notice and Final Order. Nothing in this
Consent Agreement and Order is intended, nor shall be construed, to operate in any way
- 8 -



to resolve any criminal liability of Williams. Compliance with this Consent Agreement
and Order shall not be a defense to any action subsequently commenced by PHMSA
pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws or regulations, and it is the responsibility of
Williams to comply with such laws and regulations at all times.
22. Each undersigned representative of the Parties certifies that he is fully
authorized by the party represented to enter into the terms and conditions hereof and to
execute and legally bind that party to it.
23. This Consent Agreement and Order constitutes the entire agreement of the
Parties and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements, understandings,
negotiations and discussions between the Parties, whether oral or written, with respect to
the subject matter herein. The terms of this Consent Agreement and Order control in the
event of any inconsistency with the record in this proceeding.
24. Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, this Consent Agreement
and Order shall terminate upon PHMSA’s written acceptance and approval of the
Projects Completion Report submitted pursuant to Paragraph 14 above.
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
___________________________ ______________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety
___________________________ ______________________
Phillip Wright, President Date
Williams Gas Pipeline Company, LLC
- 9 -



APPENDIX ONE-FINAL ORDER
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Matorials Safety
Pipeline and Hazardous
Administration
JUL 3 O 2007
Mr. Randy Barnard
/ice President, Operations and Gas Control
Villiams Gas Pipeline-Transa
2800 Post Oak Boulevard
Houston, TX 77056
RE: CPF No. 1-2005-1007
Dear Mr. Barnard:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety
in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation, requires certain corrective actions,
Sincerely,
Jan th
James Reynolds
Pipeline Compliance Registry
Office of Pipeline Safety
Mr. Donald E. Hockaday, III, Senior Attorney
Byron Coy, Director, OPS Eastern Region
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
- 10 -



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
In the Matter of
AKA Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation,
WILLIAMS GAS PIPELINE - TRANSCO,
)
CPF No. 1-2005-1007
Respondent.
)
)
FINAL ORDER
Between October 4-17, 2005, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and
conducted an on-site investigation of the pipeline facilities of Williams Gas Pipeline - Transco
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety ("OPS"), Eastern Region,
("Williams" or "Respondent") in Chantilly, Virginia, in response to an incident occurring on
The incident occurred in a populated area near an elementary school, located in a Class 3, High
October 3, 2005, during the excavation and physical inspection of one of Respondent's pipelines.
and punctured an active 36-inch gas transmission line, resulting in the evacuation of more than
Consequence Area. During the excavation work, Respondent's contract backhoe operator struck
850 schoolchildren and area residents. No fatalities, injuries, or property losses were reported.
Pursuant to the subsequent OPS inspection and investigation, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS,
issued to Respondent, by letter dated December 29, 2005, a Notice of Probable Violation
Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order ("Notice"). In accordance with 45
C.P.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed (1) finding that Respondent had committed violations of
(3) ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
49 C.F.R. Part 192, (2) assessing a total civil penalty of $600,000 for the alleged violations, and
contested several allegations, submitted information and exhibits in support of its position, and
Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated, January 27, 2006 ("Response"). Respondent
requested mitigation of the proposed penalty. Respondent also requested a hearing. A hearing
was subsequently held on June 13, 2006, in Washington, D.C., with Renita K. Bivins of the
dated July 20, 2006.
Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. Respondent provided a post-hearing submission
- 11 -



:
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
-2-
Item 1(A) in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), which
provides:
§192.605. Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and
emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline,
a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and
maintenance activities and for emergency response.
Item 1(A) alleged that Respondent failed to follow a portion of its own operations and
5.2.2, Ditching Existing Pipelines. " That procedure states:
maintenance manual entitled, "Onshore Pipeline Construction Specification 90.05.00: Subpart
Side-cutting teeth shall be removed from buckets of excavating
equipment. A steel bar shall be welded across the digging teeth.
backhoe bucket and that such failure contributed to the puncture of the pipeline ("Line C"),
The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to cover or remove the side-cutting teeth of the
the incident, an OPS inspector took photos of the backhoe and submitted them into the record.
which was in service at the time of the incident and operating at about 600 psig. On the date of
The photos show the backhoe bucket with no steel bar across the digging teeth and teeth marks
on Line C. Respondent neither disputed this allegation nor provided evidence to demonstrate
mitigating factors. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by
failing to follow for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and
maintenance and for emergencies.
Item 1(B) in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), as quoted
above, by failing to follow another section of its operations and maintenance manual entitled,
"Onshore
Pipelines," which states:
Pipeline Construction Specification 90.05.00, Subpart 5.2.3, Ditching Existing
5 feet of the staked location until the pipeline has been physically located
Machine excavation of in-service pipelines shall not be permitted within
pipeline facility by hand, machine excavation within 2 feet shall not be
by hand unless otherwise approved by the Company. After locating the
permitted. Final excavation shall be by hand.
Item 1(B) alleged that on the date of the accident, Respondent failed to follow Subpart 5.2.3 by
not hand digging within two feet of another of Respondent's pipelines, known as "Line A,"
which had been "blown down" for inspection purposes and was out of service at the time. A
suspected anomaly had been identified near the bottom (6 o'clock position) of Line A. As the
backhoe dug below the bottom of Line A, it punctured Respondent's in-service pipeline, Line C.
excavation within two feet of an in-service pipeline resulted in the puncture of Line C.
OPS alleged that Respondent's failure to follow its own procedures prohibiting machine
- 12 -



During the hearing and in its Post-Hearing Brief, Respondent acknowledged that it did no 3.
hand dig within two feet of Line A but contended that Specification 90.05.00, Subpart 5.2.3,
applied only to lines that were in service at the time of excavation. Therefore, because Line A
or 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a).
was out of service at the time, Respondent contended that it had not violated its own procedures
Respondent is technically correct in stating that the first sentence of Item 1(B) alleged a failure to
failed to hand dig within two feet of the in-service Line C. Respondent has admitted failing to
excavate by hand within two feet of this in-service line.
Proceedings under 49 C.F.R. Part 190 do not require strict pleading as at English common law.
There is no question but that the facts alleged in Item 1(B), when read as a whole, constitute a
violation of Respondent's own procedures requiring hand digging within two feet of an in-
service line. Just because the in-service line that was struck happened to be Line C, rather than
own procedures for hand digging within two feet of an in-service pipeline.
Line A, makes no difference for purposes of this proceeding. Respondent has still violated its
Based upon the foregoing, I find that Respondent violated its own manual of written procedures,
"Onshore Pipeline Construction Specification 90.05.00, Section 5.2 Existing Pipelines," and
specifically, Section 5.2.3, which prohibits machine excavation within two feet of an in-service
line. I find that the backhoe operator hired by Respondent excavated by machine within two feet
of both Line A and Line C, the latter being an active line, that the operator struck Line C
multiple times, and that he eventually punctured Line C. Accordingly, I find that Respondent
violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow for each pipeline, a manual of written
procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency response.
Item 1(C) in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), as quoted
above, by failing to follow the operator's own procedures entitled, "As-Built Survey
Specification 75.0503.01, Subpart 2.9.3," which states:
It will be the responsibility of construction inspectors to assist
location of the Company's existing facilities.
the construction Contractor in verifying the survey party's staked
Item 1(C) alleged that Respondent's inspectors violated this specification by failing to review the
company's as-built drawings with the construction contractor, by failing to verify the existence
of the crossover of Line A and Line C, and by failing to make the as-built drawings available to
the contractor on site, either prior to or during the excavation activity leading up to the October
3, 2005 accident.
- 13-



- 4-
otio for use be aprop ate operating person quetion hold no be read as roguing.
as-built drawings to be provided to equipment operators, as suggested by OPS at the hearing.
Rather, the company's standard practice is:
"to provide as-built drawings to the surveyor, who is responsible
quipment operator is expected to rely on the surveyor's markings
or marking the pipeline, but not to the equipment operator. Th
the surveyor was provided with the drawings, but failed to mark line 'C. "2
not to attempt to interpret the drawings himself. In this case,
The real issue presented by Item 1(C) is not whether Respondent's procedures required the as-
built drawings to be located on site but, rather, whether Respondent's inspectors failed to "assist
the construction Contractor in verifying the survey party's staked location of the Company's
existing facilities." There is virtually no evidence in the record to show that Respondent's
inspectors did anything to aid or assist the construction contractor in any meaningful way to
verify the location of the company's facilities.
Respondent missed several opportunities to provide meaningful assistance to the contractor. OPS
testified that the backhoe operator never attended the pre-construction meeting. Respondent
Respondent's inspectors did not have as-built drawings on site at the time of the accident, and
that the inspectors took no other steps to help the contractor in verifying the location of the lines.
Lastly, OPS staff testified that it is standard industry practice for a pipeline operator's foreman to
carry the applicable as-built drawings with him on site during excavation work and to assist the
Respondent took none of these measures to assist the excavation contractor.
excavation crew leader in reviewing and confirming that the lines are properly marked.
Based upon the foregoing, I find that Respondent violated its own procedure entitled, "As-Built
emergencies.
pipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance and for
2 Post-Hearing Brief, at p. 3.
' This defense is discussed more fully below. See Item 2.
3 "Williams Gas Pipeline Pennsboro Incident, October 3, 2005," at pp. 1-11.
- 14 -



- 5-
Item 1(D) in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), as quoted
above, by failing to follow its own procedure entitled, "Construction Manual, Section 90.05.00,
Subpart 10, Welding Qualification 10.1.5," which states:
The radiographic acceptance standard for welder re-qualification
and for production work shall be API 1104 (latest DOT approved
edition) unless otherwise specified by the Company.
Subsection 10.3.27 of the same specification further provides:
Company shall have the final decision on weld acceptability. Each
weld not meeting the acceptability standard shall be repaired or
replaced.
Item 1(D) alleged that one of the welds on the repaired Line C did not pass inspection by one of
the Respondent's Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) contract technicians. Nevertheless, one of the
Respondent's contract welding inspectors overruled the technician and, without proper authority,
accepted the weld and allowed the pipeline to go back into service with a defective weld. OPS
alleged that the weld did not meet the Company's radiographic acceptance standard (API
before being repaired by the Respondent.
Standard 1104) and that the noncompliant weld was placed in service for thirteen (13) days
Respondent did not dispute the foregoing allegations and confirmed that its welding inspector
did not have the authority to overrule the NDT technician without providing weld information to
Respondent's welding engineers in Houston, who would normally resolve any disputed welds.
Respondent further advised that on October 12, 2005, as soon as it discovered the defective weld,
the operator reduced the operating pressure to 560 psig (41.33% SMYS), isolated the line, and
determined that the line was safe to operate under the reduced pressure. Unfavorable atmospheric
conditions prevented the line from being blown down until October 17, at which time the weld
was finally repaired.
I find that the Respondent violated its own Construction Manual, Section 90.05.00, Subpart 10,
Welding Qualification 10.1.5, which requires all welds to meet API Standard 1104 and the
operator to make final decisions on weld acceptability. I further find that the noncompliant weld
ensure public safety from the time it discovered the defective weld on October 12 until the weld
was allowed to remain in service for 13 days, but that Respondent took reasonable measures to
was ultimately repaired on October 17. Based upon such facts, I find that Respondent violated 49
conducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency response.
C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for
Item 2 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(b)(3), which states:
§192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and
emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each
- 15-



pipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations
- 6-
and maintenance activities and for emergency response....
(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required
following, if applicable, to provide safety during maintenance
y paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the
and operations......
(3) Making construction records, maps, and operating history
available to appropriate operating personnel
Item 2 alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §192.605(b)(3) by failing to follow its own
rocedures regarding the availability of as-built drawings. The Notice alleged that Respondent'
wn personnel had informed PHMSA that the company's procedures called for the drawings t
According to Respondent's O&M Policy 10.12.01.05, "Maintaining and Reviewing Construction
Records and Maps," Subpart 3.3.1, it was the responsibility of the operator's District Manager to
[e)nsure the latest revision of maps and drawings are available to
operating personnel for reference when accomplishing day-to-day
During the hearing and in its post-hearing submission, Respondent contended that neither 49
C.F.R. § 192.605(b)(3), nor Respondent's own procedure, as quoted above, required such
required "only that they be made available to the appropriate operating personnel."
to be located on site. On the contrary, Respondent asserted that its procedures
Respondent argued that the drawings were in fact "readily available" for review by the
construction personnel in Respondent's field construction job office located "a short distance"
from the work site, but that the construction personnel failed to review them.
Respondent's procedures clearly designate the company's District Manager as be
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 128935