# EQUITABLE GAS COMPANY, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

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

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

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

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

120061006_Closure Letter_02072011_text.pdf

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

120061006_FinalOrder_05132010_text.pdf

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



12
section in ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7),
section 6.4, and in NACE RP 0502-2002 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 192.7). An operator must develop and implement a direct assessment
plan that has procedures addressing preassessment, indirect examination,
direct examination, and post-assessment. If the ECDA detects pipeline
coating damage, the operator must also integrate the data from the ECDA
with other information from the data integration (§ 192.917(b)) to evaluate
the covered segment for the threat of third party damage, and to address
the threat as required by § 192.917(e)(1).
(1) …
(2) Indirect examination. In addition to the requirements in
ASME/ANSI B31.8S section 6.4 and NACE RP 0502–2002, section 4, the
plan’s procedures for indirect examination of the ECDA regions must
include-
(i) Provisions for applying more restrictive criteria when conducting
ECDA for the first time on a covered segment;
(ii) Criteria for identifying and documenting those indications that
must be considered for excavation and direct examination. Minimum
identification criteria include the known sensitivities of assessment tools,
the procedures for using each tool, and the approach to be used for
decreasing the physical spacing of indirect assessment tool readings when
the presence of a defect is suspected;
(iii) Criteria for defining the urgency of excavation and direct
examination of each indication identified during the indirect examination.
These criteria must specify how an operator will define the urgency of
excavating the indication as immediate, scheduled or monitored; and
(iv) Criteria for scheduling excavation of indications for each urgency
level.
The Notice alleged that Equitable violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(2)(ii), by failing to document
the criteria it used for decreasing the physical spacing of indirect assessment tool readings when
the presence of a defect was suspected. Specifically, it alleged that Equitable did not document
the criteria for changing the spacing of PCM tool readings on Line H-153. OPS asserted that
Equitable had used a different PCM tool spacing than what was recommended in the tool
manual. Equitable admitted this but argued that it had done so to allow for a greater number of
PCM readings and not in response to a suspected defect.
I find that OPS has failed to meet its burden of proving a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.925(b)(2)
and therefore order th
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 74256