{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120061006","title":"EQUITABLE GAS COMPANY, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2006-12-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"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).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120061006.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120061006.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120061006","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120061006","body":"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.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120061006_Closure Letter_02072011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120061006/120061006_Closure%20Letter_02072011.pdf\n\n120061006_Closure Letter_02072011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120061006/120061006_Closure%20Letter_02072011_text.pdf\n\n120061006_FinalOrder_05132010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120061006/120061006_FinalOrder_05132010.pdf\n\n120061006_FinalOrder_05132010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120061006/120061006_FinalOrder_05132010_text.pdf\n\n120061006_Closure Letter_02072011_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103\nOf Transportation West Trenton, NJ 08628\nPipeline and 609.989.2171\nHazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nEXPRESS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY\nFebruary 7, 2011\nMr. Randall L. Crawford\nPresident, EQT Midstream & Distribution\nEQT Corporation\n625 Liberty Avenue\nPittsburgh, PA 15222\nCPF 1-2006-1006\nDear Mr. Crawford:\nFrom July 11-15 and July 25-28 of 2005, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA) inspected Equitable Production Company’s (Equitable), now known\nas EQT Midstream, Gas Integrity Management Program in Pittsburgh, PA. As a result of the\ninspection, PHMSA issued a Final Order to Equitable on May 13, 2010. The Final Order included a\nCompliance Order (CO) and Civil Penalty (CP) assessment. The CO required Equitable to take\ncertain actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations.\nAmong the requirements of the CO, Equitable must adequately document its completed and future\nExternal Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) process pertaining to Line H-153 as prescribed in the\nregulations. However, Equitable has informed PHMSA that as of 2005 it no longer uses direct\nassessment as an assessment method. Equitable has since reassessed Line H-153 by a pressure test in\n2008.\nBased on our review of the documentation you provided on January 18, 2011, that includes data for\nthe 2008 pressure test for Line H-153 and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been\ndetermined that you have complied with the terms of this Final Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the matters\ninvolved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nByron Coy, PE\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n120061006_FinalOrder_05132010_text.pdf\n\nMAY 13 2010\nMr. Randall L. Crawford\nPresident, EQT Midstream and Distribution\nEQT Corporation\n625 Liberty Avenue\nPittsburgh, PA 15222\nRe: CPF No. 1-2006-1006\nDear Mr. Crawford:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation,\nwithdraws certain allegations, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $108,600, and specifies actions\nthat need to be taken by Equitable to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty\npayment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the\nterms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed\neffective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, PHMSA\nMr. David Dewey, Esq., Counsel for Equitable Utilities\nMr. Kirk K. Van Tine, Esq., Counsel for Equitrans, L.P., and Equitable Gas Company\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0043 9443]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n_________________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nEQT Corporation, ) CPF No. 1-2006-1006\nformerly Equitable Utilities Investments, Inc., )\nand Equitable Resources, Inc., )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n_________________________________________ )\nFINAL ORDER\nOn July 11-15 and 25-28, 2005, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an inspection of the Gas Integrity Management Program (IMP) records of Equitable\nResources, Inc., now known as EQT Corporation (Equitable or Respondent), in Pittsburgh,\nPennsylvania.\nWest Virginia.\n1 Equitable operates natural gas pipelines throughout Kentucky, Pennsylvania and\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated December 28, 2006, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that Respondent had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192,\nassessing a civil penalty of $296,400 for the alleged violations, and ordering Respondent to take\ncertain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed finding that\nRespondent had committed another probable violation of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and warning\nRespondent to take appropriate corrective action to address it or be subject to future enforcement\naction.\nBy letter dated February 2, 2007, Equitable requested a hearing and sought and received several\nextensions of time to reply to the Notice. The company provided a substantive response to the\nNotice by letter dated February 5, 2007 (Response). Respondent contested all of the allegations\nand requested a hearing. A hearing was held on December 11, 2007, in Washington, D.C., with\n1 OPS inspected the IMP records of Equitable Resources, Inc., and served the Notice on Equitable Utilities\nInvestments, Inc., which became EQT Corporation in 2009. EQT Corporation is also the parent company of\nEquitrans, L.P., and the Equitable Gas Company, the two entities that responded to the Notice in this matter.\n\n\n\n2\nJim Curry, Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. On January 18, 2008,\nRespondent provided certain documents and information requested during the hearing. During\nthe hearing, Respondent also requested the opportunity to submit a post-hearing brief and\nsubsequently sought and received various extensions of time to file the post-hearing brief on the\nbasis that Respondent and OPS had undertaken informal settlement discussions. After several\nextensions, Equitable submitted its post-hearing brief (Closing) on May 16, 2008. Equitable was\nrepresented by counsel throughout the proceeding.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1(A): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b), which states:\n§ 192.917 How does an operator identify potential threats to pipeline\nintegrity and use the threat identification in its integrity\nprogram?\n(a) . . .\n(b) Data gathering and integration. To identify and evaluate the\npotential threats to a covered pipeline segment an operator must gather\nand integrate existing data and information on the entire pipeline that\ncould be relevant to the covered segment. In performing this data\ngathering and integration, an operator must follow the requirements in\n[American Society of Mechanical Engineers/American National Standards\nInstitute] ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 4. At a minimum, an operator\nmust gather and evaluate the set of data specified in Appendix A to\nASME/ANSI B31.8S, and consider both on the covered segment and\nsimilar non-covered segments, past incident history, corrosion control\nrecords, continuing surveillance records, patrolling records, maintenance\nhistory, internal inspection records and all other conditions specific to\neach pipeline.\nThe Notice alleged that Equitable violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b) by failing to properly gather\nand integrate existing data and information on its pipelines in order to identify and evaluate the\npotential threats to covered pipeline segments.2 Specifically, the Notice alleged three\ndeficiencies in Equitable’s procedures. First, it alleged that Equitable’s IMP did not contain\noperator-specific steps for obtaining and documenting required data. Second, it alleged that the\nIMP did not require data to be obtained from Equitable documents that corresponded to the\nsources specified in the rule. Third, it alleged that the IMP did not include a detailed plan for the\nvalidation of assumed values for missing data. Each of these allegations is discussed separately\nbelow.\n2 Section 192.917(b) incorporates by reference ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 4, which lists requirements for\ngathering, reviewing, and integrating IMP data.\n\n\n\n3\nAs for the first allegation that Equitable failed to have company-specific steps for obtaining and\ndocumenting required data, the company submitted evidence in its Closing that it did, in fact,\nhave such procedures in place.\nprocedures are general in nature because they often use the term “Company” when describing\nwho is to follow the plan. This alone, however, does not prove that the IMP was not tailored to\nEquitable’s particular pipeline system. Moreover, OPS did not explain what Equitable-specific\nsteps for obtaining and documenting data were missing, or why this alleged lack of specificity\nconstituted a violation of § 192.917(b). In the absence of a more specific allegation or\nexplanation and in light of the evidence in the record, I withdraw this portion of Item 1A.\n3 Upon review of these documents, it is apparent that the cited\nAs for the second allegation that the company’s IMP did not require the use of documentation\nfrom sources specified in the rule, I note that section 4.3 of ASME B31.8S (“ASME Code”) sets\nout the requirement that data “can be obtained from within the operating company and from\nexternal sources….” Equitable’s IMP states that the company will obtain data from sources\nwithin the company and from external sources and lists the types of data and their sources.4\nTherefore, these procedures, on their face, appear to require the collection of data in accordance\nwith the requirements of the regulation. OPS did not present evidence or argument to meet its\nburden of proof that such procedures are deficient either under 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b) or the\nreferenced ASME Code. Accordingly, upon review of all of the evidence, I withdraw this\nportion of Item 1A.\nAs for the third allegation that the IMP did not include a detailed plan for the validation of\nmissing data, Respondent argued that its IMP did, in fact, provide mechanisms for dealing with\n“data gaps.\n”5 Careful treatment of missing or questionable data is an important part of the gas\nIMP framework. If such data are not properly accounted for, the risk assessment required under\n§ 192.917 may produce inaccurate results. Since October 2004, OPS has made available to\noperators its gas IMP compliance inspection protocols.6 Protocol C.02 pertains to inspections\nfor compliance with the data gathering and integration requirements of § 192.917(b).7 The\nProtocol provides that: “If the operator lacks sufficient data or where data quality is suspect,\nverify that the operator has followed the requirements in [the ASME Code].\n”8\nSection 192.917(b) and the referenced ASME Code set out requirements for addressing missing\nor questionable data. First, section 4.1 of the ASME Code requires operators to use a\n“systematic process … to collect and effectively utilize the data elements necessary for risk\n3 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\nobtaining and documenting required data.\n4 Equitable IMP Procedures, section 4.5.2. – Data Sources.\n5 Closing at 7, citing IMP Section 4.5.2.\n6 PHMSA-OPS Gas Integrity Management Protocol Results Form (Oct. 2004) (available at\nhttp://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/gasimp/documents.htm).\n7 Id. at Protocol C.02.\n8 Protocol C.02.d, citing NACE Code Sections 4.2.1, 4.4, Appendix A, and 5.7(e).\n\n\n\n4\nassessment” of their pipeline segments. Next, section 4.2.1 provides that if data on a particular\nthreat to a pipeline segment are not available, operators shall assume that such threat applies to\nthat pipeline segment. Finally, section 4.4 requires operators to create\n“\n. . . a plan for collecting, reviewing, and analyzing the data… [The plan]\nshall be created and in place from the conception of the data collection effort.\nThese processes are needed to verify the quality and consistency of the data.\nRecords shall be maintained throughout the process that identify where and\nhow unsubstantiated data is used in the risk assessment process, so its\npotential impact on the variability and accuracy of assessment results can be\nconsidered.”\nEquitable’s procedures for the validation of assumed values for missing data elements must be\nassessed in light of these requirements. Equitable offered a section of its IMP procedures as\nevidence that it had addressed “data gaps.”9 Respondent’s procedure deals with data gaps, i.e.,\nplans for data-gathering activities when data is missing, etc, but it does not address the validation\nof data values that have been assumed. Equitable initiated efforts to validate assumed data only\nafter the PHMSA inspection, when it engaged a third-party expert to conduct testing to confirm\npipe grades.\nC.F.R. § 192.917(b), including ASME B31.8S, section 4 referenced therein, by failing to include\nin its IMP a detailed plan for the validation of assumed values for missing data.\n10 Accordingly, after considering all the evidence, I find that Equitable violated 49\nItem 1(B): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b), as quoted\nabove, by failing to gather certain required data and information on its pipelines. Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that Equitable failed to gather, from its own records, pipe type and grade,\nseam type, wall thickness, coating and the basis for calculating a pipeline’s maximum allowable\noperating pressure (MAOP). It is undisputed that the regulation requires Equitable to “gather\nand integrate existing data and information” on these pipeline characteristics. It is also\nundisputed that Equitable did not collect some of this data from its own records.11\nRespondent argued, however, that the regulation only required it to gather “existing data,” and\nthat some pipeline characteristics data on its pipelines was not available.12\nRespondent\nexplained that certain of its pipelines were constructed before the implementation of pipeline\nrecord-keeping requirements and that some data had been lost in a flood in the mid-1980’s.\nWhile it is clear that Equitable did not have records of certain pipeline characteristics, there is no\nevidence that Equitable failed to gather existing information from available records.\nAccordingly, based on the foregoing, I find that OPS has failed to meet its burden of proving a\nviolation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.917(b), including ASME B31.8S, section 4 code referenced therein, and therefore order\nthat Item 1B be withdrawn.\n9 Closing at 7.\n10 Id. at 10.\n11 Id.\n12 Response at 3-4, Closing at 10-11.\n\n\n\n5\nItem 1(C): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b), as quoted\nabove, by failing to maintain pipe characteristics data in its IMP. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat the grade of plastic on a certain gas transmission line was listed incorrectly, and that the\nMAOP and test pressure of the pipeline were incorrectly listed as being the same. Equitable\nexplained that the source data was correct but admitted that it had incorrectly entered this data in\nthe spreadsheet used to collect pipeline data for its IMP.\n13 Equitable argued that this data error\nwas not a pipeline safety issue and that the pipeline segment was low risk.14\nAlthough this\nparticular inaccuracy caused no apparent harm, accurate data entry is important to the quality of\nEquitable’s IMP. Inaccurate data can result in a failure to identify and address the actual risks on\na pipeline segment. Based on the foregoing, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.917(b) by failing to maintain pipe characteristics data in its IMP.\nItem 1(D): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b), as quoted\nabove, by failing to follow section 4 of the ASME Code in considering “unavailable data” on its\npipeline segments when conducting the required threat identification and risk assessment. The\nASME Code provides a process for taking certain actions when an operator lacks the data\nnecessary to identify potential threats to pipeline integrity. Section 4.2.1 of the ASME Code\nprovides that if data needed to perform a risk assessment is unavailable, “it shall be assumed that\nthe particular threat applies to the pipeline segment being evaluated.” Section 4.4 further\nprovides that “[r]ecords shall be maintained throughout the process that identify where and how\nunsubstantiated data is used in the risk assessment process, so its potential impact on the\nvariability and accuracy of assessment results can be considered.” Finally, Appendix A of the\nASME Code provides that “where the operator is missing data, conservative assumptions shall\nbe used when performing the risk assessment or alternatively the segment shall be placed in a\nhigher priority category.” The regulations therefore permit operators to make conservative\nassumptions in lieu of using actual data but also require that operators show how they made such\nassumptions and to document them.15\nIn response, Equitable argued that it had considered unavailable data by making conservative\nassumptions where data was not available, as permitted by the regulation.16 For example,\nEquitable argued that it considered seam failure threats on pre-1970 pipe even though there was\nno history of seam failures on its system,\n17\nyet provided no records or evidence to document any\nof these conservative assumptions. The OPS Violation Report cited Respondent’s IMP\nprocedures and certain data forms as evidence that the company did not adequately consider\nunavailable data, yet the report failed to indicate how it did so or what records were missing.\nWhile Equitable’s efforts to address unavailable data may have been inadequate, in the absence\nof a more detailed allegation or relevant evidence, the record in this case does not support a\nfinding of violation. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, I find that OPS has failed to meet its\n13 Response at 5, Closing at 12.\n14 Closing at 12.\n15 ASME B31.8S, Sections 4-5 & Appendix A.\n16 Response at 5, Closing at 13.\n17 Closing at 13.\n\n\n\n6\nburden of proving a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b), including the ASME B31.8S section 4\ncode referenced therein, and therefore order that Item 1(D) be withdrawn.\nItem 1(E): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b), as quoted\nabove, by failing to make sufficient efforts to obtain required data on its pipelines, as required by\nsection 4 of the ASME Code. Neither the Notice nor the Violation Report explain how or why\nEquitable’s efforts were insufficient to obtain required data. In its Response, Equitable indicated\nthat as part of its data-gathering effort, it used a consultant familiar with the company’s pipeline\nEquitable had not employed the necessary resources to obtain pipeline system data because it had\nonly used one consultant to obtain the data. OPS did not provide an explanation as to why using\njust one consultant was insufficient. The fact that Equitable used one consultant to perform its\nIMP data collection efforts does not, without more, prove that a violation has occurred.\nAccordingly, based on the evidence, I find that OPS has failed to meet its burden of proving a\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b), including the ASME B31.8S section 4 code referenced\ntherein, and therefore order that Item 1(E) be withdrawn.\nsystems to review all engineering records and field data.18 At the hearing, OPS indicated that\nItem 2(A): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(1), which\nstates:\n§ 192.925 What are the requirements for using External Corrosion\nDirect Assessment (ECDA)?\n(a) Definition. ECDA is a four-step process that combines pre-\nassessment, indirect inspection, direct examination, and post assessment to\nevaluate the threat of external corrosion to the integrity of a pipeline.\n(b) General requirements. An operator that uses direct assessment to\nassess the threat of external corrosion must follow the requirements in this\nsection, in ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7),\nsection 6.4, and in NACE RP 0502-2002 (incorporated by reference, see\n§ 192.7). An operator must develop and implement a direct assessment plan\nthat has procedures addressing preassessment, indirect examination, direct\nexamination, and post-assessment. If the ECDA detects pipeline coating\ndamage, the operator must also integrate the data from the ECDA with other\ninformation from the data integration (§ 192.917(b)) to evaluate the covered\nsegment for the threat of third party damage, and to address the threat as\nrequired by § 192.917(e)(1).\n(1) Preassessment. In addition to the requirements in ASME/ANSI\nB31.8S, section 6.4 and NACE RP 0502-2002, section 3, the plan’s\nprocedures for preassessment must include –\n(i) Provisions for applying more restrictive criteria when conducting\nECDA for the first time on a covered segment; and\n(ii) The basis on which an operator selects at least two different, but\ncomplementary indirect assessment tools to assess each ECDA Region. If an\noperator utilizes an indirect inspection method that is not discussed in\nAppendix A of NACE RP0502-2002, the operator must demonstrate the\n18 Response at 5.\n\n\n\n7\napplicability, validation basis, equipment used, application procedure, and\nutilization of data for the inspection method.\nThe Notice alleged that Equitable violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(1), including section 6.4 of\nthe ASME Code and section 3 of NACE RP 0502-2002 (NACE Standard), by failing to conduct\nan evaluation to determine which data elements were necessary for an adequate External\nCorrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) for specific pipelines and High Consequence Areas\n(HCAs).\n19 Specifically, the Notice alleged that Equitable failed to obtain all required or critical\ndata and to make conservative assumptions where data was lacking or questionable, during its\nproper ECDA pre-assessment.\nECDA pre-assessment.20 The Notice alleged that Equitable did not know where bare pipe\nstarted and ended on Line H-153 and that such pipe transition knowledge was essential data for a\nSection 192.925(b)(1) requires Equitable to follow section 3 of the NACE Standard, which\nprovides that an operator must “define minimum data requirements based on the history and\ncondition of the pipeline segment” and “identify data elements that are critical to the success of\nallegedly failed to meet when it lacked basic information about the location of bare- to coated-\npipe transitions on the H-153 line.\nthe ECDA process.”21 Apparently, it is this “critical elements” requirement that Equitable\nIn response, Equitable argued that there is no evidence showing that the company failed to\nidentify or use all “critical elements” in developing its ECDA pre-assessment process.\n22 The\ncompany argued that section 3.2.2 of the NACE Standard does not require a specific list of data\nelements, and that the determination of required or “critical elements” is up to the company and\nflexibility in determining “critical elements,” but this judgment is not left entirely to the\ndiscretion of the operator. OPS must be able to assess the reasonableness of an operator’s\nnot the agency.23 Respondent is correct that the NACE Standard allows an operator some\nchoices in light of the history and condition of its pipelines and in the context of the operator’s\nown unique IMP.\nThe problem here is that OPS did not present evidence or analysis proving that Equitable’s\nchoice of “critical elements” was inadequate or why it was essential, for purposes of the\nregulation, that Equitable know the exact location of bare- to coated-pipe transitions as part of\n19 “High Consequence Areas” are geographic areas located in proximity to gas pipelines where there is a\nheightened risk of injury to life and property in the event of a pipeline failure. For the definition of HCAs, see 49\nC.F.R. § 192.903.\n20 The Gas IMP regulations permit Equitable to use the ECDA process, where appropriate, to evaluate external\ncorrosion threats on its pipelines. The first step in the process is pre-assessment. In this step, the operator must\ndetermine whether ECDA is feasible and, if so, select at least two indirect inspection tools and identify ECDA\nregions. NACE RP0502-2002, Section 3. ECDA regions consist of one or more sections of pipeline with similar\nphysical characteristics and operating history and in which the same indirect inspection tools are used. Section 2\n21 Section 3.2.1.1.\n22 Response at 6, Closing at 15.\n23 Closing at 16.\n\n\n\n8\nthe pre-assessment process. On the contrary, it appears that Equitable took steps during the\nECDA process to account for such uncertainties by making conservative assumptions where data\nwas lacking or questionable. Equitable argued that although the exact location of the bare- to\ncoated-pipe transitions may not have been known, the company extended its electronic surveys\nbeyond the estimated transition points.\nexplanation as to why the extension of electrical surveys was not an appropriate conservative\nassumption.\n24 OPS did not rebut Equitable’s argument or provide an\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that OPS has failed to meet its\nburden of proving a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(1), including section 6.4 of the ASME\nCode and section 3 of the NACE Standard, and therefore order that Item 2(A) be withdrawn.\nItem 2(B): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(1), as quoted\nabove, by failing to properly conduct ECDA on Line H-153. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nEquitable had indicated that it did not employ ECDA on areas with cased pipeline segments, yet\nrecords for H-153 showed a cased section within that ECDA region. The Notice also alleged\nthat the H-153 ECDA data made “suspect” the feasibility of Equitable’s use of ECDA as an\nassessment method and how ECDA regions were determined. During the hearing, Equitable\nprovided a document indicating that it had not applied ECDA to the areas of cased pipeline, as\nalleged in the Notice.\nchanged its view on this Item. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I order\nthat Item 2(B) be withdrawn.\n25 OPS acknowledged during the hearing that this document would have\nItem 2(C): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(1), as quoted\nabove, including section 3 of the NACE Standard, by failing to properly select indirect\nexamination tools to assess each ECDA region. Specifically, the Notice alleged that excavations\nperformed during the direct examination step revealed that a “coating holiday” which had been\ndetected during an earlier indirect examination actually turned out to a section of bare pipe. The\nNotice alleged that “[T]his anomalous result raises questions regarding the adequacy of the\nECDA process… Specifically, this result makes suspect the choice of indirect examination\ntools.”26\n24 Id.\n25 Equitable provided a copy of GTI Form C1, “Indication Severity Classification and Priority Category and\nReassessment Dates.” This form is dated November 5, 2005, which falls after the OPS inspection. During the\nhearing, Equitable explained that it had mistakenly dated the form “2005,” instead of “2004.” After the hearing,\nEquitable provided a signed declaration that the correct date of completion of the form was November 5, 2004, and\nan explanation of the error.\n26 Notice at 6.\n\n\n\n9\nIn response, Equitable argued that the indirect examination tool it had selected was capable of\nproviding accurate results at bare- to coated-pipe transitions.27 Equitable explained that when it\nperformed the survey, the “tool identified an area of pipe consistent with bare pipe” and that it\nhad verified the tool results by performing an excavation of the indication at the suspected bare-\nto coated-pipe transition.28\nAlthough the excavations performed by Equitable may have “raised questions” about the\nadequacy of its ECDA process, such doubts do not constitute proof of a violation of\n§ 192.925(b)(1). The regulation requires Equitable to follow section 3.4 of the NACE Standard\nwhen selecting assessment tools and to select a minimum of two tools for all ECDA regions.\nThe tools must complement each other, based on their ability to reliably detect corrosion activity\nand/or coating holidays under the specific pipeline and environmental conditions anticipated. In\nother words, an operator must use tools suited to the type of pipe being inspected and the\nenvironment in which it is buried. Tool selection is important because certain tools are less\neffective, or not effective at all, on bare versus coated pipe. If Equitable’s tool selection did not\naccount for the location of bare versus coated pipe, the company might be applying tools which\nwould not provide accurate results.\nOPS cited various Equitable documents as evidence that the company had not properly selected\nindirect examination tools, including IMP procedures and inspection results. Yet it is not clear\nwhy, how, or what parts of these documents prove a violation. The cited documents do not\nappear relevant to the allegation and OPS did not provide an explanation as to how the\ndocuments proved a violation. Absent any such explanation and in light of Equitable’s\nreasonable arguments supporting its ECDA tool selection process, I find that OPS has failed to\nmeet its burden of proving a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(1) and therefore order that Item\n2(C) be withdrawn.\nItem 2(D): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(1), as quoted\nabove, by failing to document the basis on which it selected at least two different, but\ncomplementary, indirect assessment tools to assess each ECDA region. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Respondent did not document the basis for the selection of tools actually used to\nassess Line H-153. It is undisputed that during the pre-assessment stage, Equitable planned to\nuse Close Interval Survey (CIS) and Direct Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG) tools on H-153\nbut later opted to use a Pipeline Current Mapper (PCM) tool instead of DCVG.\nIn response, Equitable argued that the regulation does not require it to document the basis for its\nselection of indirect assessment tools.29 I disagree. The regulation requires an operator, as part\nof its pre-assessment procedures, to include “the basis on which an operator selects at least two\ndifferent, but complementary indirect assessment tools to assess each ECDA Region” (emphasis\nadded).30\nIn addition, the 2004 OPS IMP Inspection Protocols indicated that OPS would verify\n27 Closing at 20.\n28 Id.\n29 Equitable supplementary information, Jan. 18, 2008, at 2.\n30 49 C.F.R. § 912.925(b)(1)(ii).\n\n\n\n10\ndocumentation of the basis for tool selections during inspections.\ndocuments showing which tools Equitable used, as well as general guidance on when certain\ntools should and should not be used, none of these documents explains the basis on which\nspecific tools were selected for particular ECDA regions.\n31 While the record contains\nAbsent such documentation, neither Equitable nor OPS can verify that proper tools were\nselected. In its Closing, Equitable argued that it had documented its basis for tool selection by\nadopting the Gas Technology Institute (GTI) ECDA Implementation Protocol as part of its IMP\nprocedures.32 Respondent also explained why it changed from using DCVG to PCM as its\nsecond indirect tool.33\nNeither Equitable’s adoption of the GTI protocol nor its explanation\nduring and after the hearing constitutes adequate documentation of the basis for selecting two\ndifferent but complementary tools for each particular ECDA region. Regardless of the merits of\nRespondent’s explanation of the switch from DCVG to PCM, the record fails to show, as of the\ndate of the inspection, that Equitable had included a documented basis for tool selection as part\nof its pre-assessment procedures.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence in the record, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(1) by failing to document the basis on which it selected at least two\ndifferent but complementary indirect assessment tools to assess each ECDA region.\nItem 2(E): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(1), as quoted\nabove, including section 3 of the NACE Standard, by failing to properly identify ECDA regions\non Line H-153. Specifically, it alleged that Equitable failed to base the selection of ECDA\nregions on certain pipeline construction specifications and environment factors, including soil,\nenvironment, corrosion protection history, or uncertainties about pipe design information (e.g.,\nwall, grade, and coating). The Notice also alleged that Equitable did not adjust ECDA regions\nafter finding different-than-expected conditions and that it improperly grouped cased and non-\ncased pipe in the same region.\nIn response, Equitable argued that under § 192.925(b)(1) and the NACE Standard, it was not\nrequired to base its identification of ECDA regions on particular factors, and that, even if it were,\nthe company in fact considered a variety of factors in selecting the regions. Section 3.5 of the\nNACE Standard requires an operator to define the criteria it uses for identifying ECDA regions.\n31 Protocol D.02.c.\n32 Closing at 21.\n33 Closing at 22.\n\n\n\n11\nThe NACE Standard states: “An ECDA region is a portion of a pipeline segment that has similar\nphysical characteristics, corrosion histories, expected future corrosion conditions, and that uses\nthe same indirect inspection tools.”34 In defining such criteria, operators must “consider all\nconditions that could significantly affect external corrosion.”35\nIn this case, however, OPS presented no evidence or explanation as to why Equitable was\nrequired to consider the additional factors listed in the Notice (i.e., “soil, environment, or CP\nhistory”) in order to satisfy the requirements of section 3.5 of the NACE Standard. OPS did not\nshow how or why Equitable selected ECDA regions on the H-153 pipeline. As a result, there is\ninadequate information in the record to show that Respondent failed to properly select ECDA\nregions.\nEquitable further argued that it did not adjust ECDA regions because it did not find any\ndifferences between expected and as-found conditions. Here, again, there is no evidence in the\nrecord that shows a difference between expected and as-found conditions that would have\nrequired Respondent to adjust ECDA regions.\nFinally, Equitable argued that it did not put cased pipe into ECDA regions with uncased pipe, as\nalleged in the Notice. Respondent explained that it extended some of its surveys beyond the\nends of uncased pipe simply to ensure that no uncased pipe was overlooked. Respondent also\nprovided a document showing that it did, in fact, exclude the H-153 cased pipe from its ECDA.36\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence in the record, I order that Item 2(E) be\nwithdrawn.\nItem 2(F): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(2), which\nstates:\n§ 192.925 What are the requirements for using External Corrosion\nDirect Assessment (ECDA)?\n(a) …\n(b) General requirements. An operator that uses direct assessment to\nassess the threat of external corrosion must follow the requirements of this\n34 Section 3.5.1.1.1.\n35 Section 3.5.1.1 provides that “pipeline operators should define criteria for identifying ECDA regions” (emphasis\nadded). PHMSA expects operators to implement “should” statements in industry standards that are invoked by\nregulation. PHMSA communicates this expectation and other gas IMP guidance to operators via the Gas\nTransmission Pipeline Integrity Management website at http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/gasimp. Frequently Asked\nQuestion No. 244 provides: “…OPS expects operators to implement \"should\" statements in industry standards that\nare invoked by the rule. Operators may choose to implement an alternative approach in meeting the\nrecommendations of invoked standards. If this approach is taken, program requirements for the alternative approach\nmust exist in IM Program documents and records must be generated by the alternative approach. The IM Program\ndocuments must also technically justify that the alternative approach provides an equivalent level of protection. If an\noperator chooses not to implement a \"should\" statement in an invoked standard, a sound technical basis for why it\nhas not been implemented must be documented in the IM Program documents.”\n36 GTI Form C-1, for Line H-153.\n\n\n\n12\nsection in ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7),\nsection 6.4, and in NACE RP 0502-2002 (incorporated by reference, see\n§ 192.7). An operator must develop and implement a direct assessment\nplan that has procedures addressing preassessment, indirect examination,\ndirect examination, and post-assessment. If the ECDA detects pipeline\ncoating damage, the operator must also integrate the data from the ECDA\nwith other information from the data integration (§ 192.917(b)) to evaluate\nthe covered segment for the threat of third party damage, and to address\nthe threat as required by § 192.917(e)(1).\n(1) …\n(2) Indirect examination. In addition to the requirements in\nASME/ANSI B31.8S section 6.4 and NACE RP 0502–2002, section 4, the\nplan’s procedures for indirect examination of the ECDA regions must\ninclude-\n(i) Provisions for applying more restrictive criteria when conducting\nECDA for the first time on a covered segment;\n(ii) Criteria for identifying and documenting those indications that\nmust be considered for excavation and direct examination. Minimum\nidentification criteria include the known sensitivities of assessment tools,\nthe procedures for using each tool, and the approach to be used for\ndecreasing the physical spacing of indirect assessment tool readings when\nthe presence of a defect is suspected;\n(iii) Criteria for defining the urgency of excavation and direct\nexamination of each indication identified during the indirect examination.\nThese criteria must specify how an operator will define the urgency of\nexcavating the indication as immediate, scheduled or monitored; and\n(iv) Criteria for scheduling excavation of indications for each urgency\nlevel.\nThe Notice alleged that Equitable violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(2)(ii), by failing to document\nthe criteria it used for decreasing the physical spacing of indirect assessment tool readings when\nthe presence of a defect was suspected. Specifically, it alleged that Equitable did not document\nthe criteria for changing the spacing of PCM tool readings on Line H-153. OPS asserted that\nEquitable had used a different PCM tool spacing than what was recommended in the tool\nmanual. Equitable admitted this but argued that it had done so to allow for a greater number of\nPCM readings and not in response to a suspected defect.\nI find that OPS has failed to meet its burden of proving a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(2)\nand therefore order th","truncated":true,"body_characters":74256}