{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120071011","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":"2007-10-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.465.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120071011.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120071011.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120071011","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120071011","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.465. The case was opened on 2007-10-22 and is reported as closed as of 2010-09-13. Proposed civil penalty: $41,000. Assessed civil penalty: $24,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120071011_Final Order_08272010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120071011/120071011_Final%20Order_08272010.pdf\n\n120071011_Final Order_08272010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120071011/120071011_Final%20Order_08272010_text.pdf\n\n120071011_Notice letter_10222007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120071011/120071011_Notice%20letter_10222007.pdf\n\n120071011_notice letter_10222007_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120071011/120071011_notice%20letter_10222007_text.pdf\n\n120071011_operator response and Request For Hearing_12122007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120071011/120071011_operator%20response%20and%20Request%20For%20Hearing_12122007.pdf\n\n120071011_operator response_11292007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120071011/120071011_operator%20response_11292007.pdf\n\n120071011_notice letter_10222007_text.pdf\n\niJ 5 Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration\n409 3rd Street, SW, Suite 300\nWeehmgten DC 20024\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nand\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\nOctober 22, 2007\nMr Randy Bernard\nVice President,\nOperations and Gas Control\nWtlhams Gas Pipehne\n2800 Post Oak Boulevard,\nHouston, TX 77056\nCPF 1-2007-1011\nDearMr Bernard\nOn June 8, 2006, a representattve of the Pipehne and Hazardous Matenals Safety Adimmstration\n9 HMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 Urnted States Code inspected your operating records\nm the Charlottesville Office, Charlottesville, Virginia\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed a probable violation of the\nPipehne Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations The item inspected and the\nprobable violation is\n1. 11192. 465 External Corrosion Control: Monitoring\n(d) Each operator shall take prompt remedial action to correct any deficiencies\nindicated by the monitoring.\nReview of the corrosion control monitonng records indicated that repau s to rectifiers number\n170-2, 170-5, 185-5A, 185-5B and 190-0 was not done promptly These rectifiers were found to\n\n\n\nbe inoperative during bi-monthly mspections, and remiuned moperative for the followmg\npen ods\nRectifier ¹170-2, 3 months and 25 days,\nRectifier ¹170-5, 6 months and 2 days,\nRectifier ¹185-5-A&B, 4 months and 20 days,\nRectifier ¹190-0, 3 months and 8 days\nEvidence for this probable violation are Williams Gas Pipehne cathodic protection records, and\nWilhams Gas Pipehne memo entitled \"Request for Wilhams Gas Pipelme Charlottesville\nDivision — Rectifier Repair Documentanon 2004-2006\" dated July 13, 2006, &om Bruce Bevers,\nSr Engineer, to Syed Shere, Pipehne Inspector, PHMSA/ER\nPro osed Civil Penalt\nUnder 49 United States Code, (J 60122, you are subJect to a civd penalty not to exceed $100, 000\nfor each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maxunum of $1, 000, 000 for any\nrelated series of violations The Comphance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documentation involved in the above probable violation and has recommended that\nyou be prehminanly assessed a civil penalty of $41, 000 as follows\nItem number PENALTY\n$41, 000\nRes onse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of tins Notice is a document entitled Response Ophons for Pipel&ne Operators\nm Comphance ProceeCkngs Please refer to this document and note the response options Be\nadvised that all matenal you submit in response to this enforcement action is subJect to being\nmade publicly available If you beheve that any portion of your responsive matenal quahfies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U S C 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you beheve quahfy for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you beheve the redacted information\nquahfies for confidential treatment under 5 U S C 552(b) If you do not respond within 30 days\nof receipt of this Notice, tlus constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authonzes the Assomate Administrator for Pipehne Safety to find facts as alleged m\nthis Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Fmal Order\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 1-2007-1011 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible\n\n\n\nSincerely,\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPhpelme and Hazardous Matenals Safety Administration\nEnclosure Response Options for Pipeline Operators hn Compliance Proceedings\n\n120071011_Final Order_08272010_text.pdf\n\nAUG 27 10\nMr. Randy Bernard\nSenior Vice President\nTechnical Services and Operations\nWilliams Gas Pipeline\nThe Williams Companies, Inc.\n2800 Post Oak Boulevard\nHouston, TX 77056\nRe: CPF No. 1-2007-1011\nDear Mr. Bernard:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a reduced civil penalty of $24,600. The penalty payment terms are set\nforth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment.\nService of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as\notherwise 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: Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED[7009 1410 0000 2472 2827]\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 )\nWilliams Gas Pipeline, ) CPF No. 1-2007-1011\na division of The Williams Companies, Inc., )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n__________________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn June 8, 2006, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-\nsite pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Williams Gas Pipeline, a division of\nThe Williams Companies, Inc. (Williams or Respondent), in Charlottesville, Virginia. Williams\nis a global energy company that delivers approximately 12 percent of the natural gas consumed\ntransmission pipeline in the Virginia area, including a 20-inch diameter line known as “the\nVirginia Lateral.” The piping system for the Virginia Lateral was constructed during the 1960’s\nin the United States.1 The company operates over 750 miles of 10-inch to 42-inch diameter gas\nand 1970’s.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated October 22, 2007, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty\n(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent\nhad violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $41,000 for the\nalleged violations.\nOn July 13, 2006, following the inspection but prior to the issuance of the Notice, Respondent\nreplied to a request from the Eastern Region for certain documentation (Reply). Williams\nresponded to the Notice by letter dated November 29, 2007, requesting a meeting in lieu of an\ninformal hearing to explain mitigating factors. On December 12, 2007, Respondent withdrew its\nrequest for a meeting and requested an informal hearing (Response). In its Response, Williams\ncontested the allegations and explained that it would offer information at the hearing to justify its\nactions. A hearing was held on May 8, 2008, at the Eastern Regional Office, in Washington,\nDC, with Amelia Samaras, Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. After the\nhearing, Respondent submitted a Post-Hearing Response.\n1 The Williams Companies’ website (http://www.williams.com/gas_pipeline/) (last accessed 7/29/10).\n\n\n\n2\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d), which states:\n§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) . . .\n(b) Each cathodic protection rectifier or other impressed current\npower source must be inspected six times each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 2 1/2 months, to insure that it is operating. . .\n(d) Each operator shall take prompt remedial action to correct any\ndeficiencies indicated by the monitoring.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d) by failing to take prompt\nremedial action to correct certain deficiencies indicated by the company’s external corrosion\nmonitoring program. Specifically, it alleged that after Respondent found Rectifiers #170-2, 170-\n5, 185-5-A, 185-5-B, and 190-0 on the Virginia Lateral to be inoperative, repairs were not\npromptly completed for the following time periods:\nRectifier #170-2: 3 months and 25 days;\nRectifier #170-5: 6 months and 2 days;\nRectifier #185-5-A&B: 4 months and 20 days;\nRectifier #190-0: 3 months and 8 days.\nIn the Pipeline Safety Violation Report that served as the basis for the Notice, the Eastern Region\nstated, “The in-operative Rectifiers should have been repaired promptly i-e [sic] by the next\ninspection cycle of two months after they were reported broken.” Given that § 192.465(b)\nrequires rectifier inspections every 2½ months, I agree that the word “prompt” in § 192.465(d)\nshould be interpreted to mean a period of time less than 2½ months, i.e., until the next required\ninspection.\nDuring the hearing, Respondent relied heavily on its Reply, which explained why repairs to the\ninoperative rectifiers did not occur within 2½ months of detection. The Eastern Region\nrequested that Williams provide documentation to support the explanations in the Reply.\nRespondent requested and was granted a 60-day period after the hearing to prepare a Post-\nHearing Response and to provide records explaining and documenting the events described in\nthe Reply. Each of the rectifiers is discussed separately below.\nRectifier #170-2\nIn its Reply, Williams stated that this rectifier “burned up” on July 6, 2005, but that the cause\nwas not immediately known. Respondent indicated that it had worked with the rectifier vendor\nand gathered information between July and November 2005 to identify the cause of the fire.\nRespondent stated that it did not consider it prudent to repair or replace the rectifier until the\ncause of the fire had been ascertained, especially given the rectifier’s proximity to a public road.\nIt stated that “temporary repairs” were made on October 31, 2005.\n\n\n\n3\nRespondent further indicated that a combination of the distance lying between a remote\ngroundbed and the pipeline and a poorly designed panel layout caused the lightning arrestors to\ncatch fire during lightning strikes, thus resulting in severe fire damage to the rectifier. In June\n2006, a new rectifier was installed. Respondent gave no explanation as to why the “temporary\nrepairs” that it made more than three months after the rectifier was found to be inoperative (but\nbefore the cause of the fire was determined) could not have been made sooner.\nIn its Post-Hearing Response, Williams contended that it had immediately taken a cathodic\nprotection reading after discovering the damage and had determined that sufficient protection\nwas being provided by nearby rectifiers. The company provided a photo of the fire-damaged\nrectifier and contended that it would not have been prudent to repair or replace the rectifier\nwithout knowing the cause of the fire. Respondent also stated that “[its subject matter expert’s]\nevaluation of the local readings determined that there was time to investigate the nature of the\nfailure without jeopardizing the integrity of the pipeline system.” However, Williams did not\nprovide any documentation of its cathodic protection readings from the location of the destroyed\nrectifier, its four-month investigation into the cause of the fire, or any correspondence with the\nrectifier vendor. Accordingly, upon review of all of the evidence, I find that Williams failed to\ntake prompt remedial to correct the deficiencies indicated by the failure of Rectifier # 170-2.\nRectifier # 170-5\nIn its Reply, Williams stated that its inspector had observed this rectifier to be “burned up” and\ninoperative on September 10, 2005. The company contended that it had not taken “emergency\naction” to repair or replace the rectifier because it believed that surrounding rectifiers supplied\nsufficient current to the pipeline. At the hearing, Respondent also stated that there was a low risk\nof lightning in winter and that it “did not have budget” for a new rectifier at that time. Therefore,\ntemporary repairs were made in March 2006 and a new rectifier installed on June 14, 2006.\nIn its Post-Hearing Response, Williams further stated that after it had discovered the destroyed\nrectifier, a pipe-to-soil reading showed that sufficient protection was being provided by nearby\nrectifiers. Respondent also stated that initial repairs were “problematic,” but neither explained\nwhat the problem was nor provided any documentation to support this assertion or records of the\ncathodic protection readings from the location of the destroyed rectifier. Accordingly, upon\nreview of all of the evidence, I find that Williams failed to take prompt remedial action to correct\nthe deficiencies indicated by the failure of Rectifier # 170-5.\nRectifiers # 185-5-A&B\nIn its Reply, Williams stated that this transformer was found “burned up” and “the rectifier”2\ninoperative on May 4, 2005. From May to mid-July, Respondent claimed to have searched old\nstockpiles of retired rectifiers for a similar size transformer but without success. A new rectifier\nwas ordered and installed by September 24, 2005.\n2 In both its Reply and Post-Hearing Response, Williams used the singular, i.e. “the rectifier,” in discussing\nRectifiers 185-5-A&B. However, the company never contested OPS’ allegation that both 185-5 A and 185-5 B\nwere inoperative for nearly four months.\n\n\n\n4\nOn January 5, 2006, the output on #185-5-A was observed to be lower than normal, with further\ndecreasing outputs observed on March 6, 2006, and May 10, 2006. At the time of its Reply in\nJuly 2006, Respondent stated that it had immediate plans to replace damaged header cables and\nwas awaiting power re-connection by the power company.\nWilliams also discovered in early 2006 that the groundbed powered by rectifier #185-5-B was\ndamaged and scheduled it for replacement in July or August of 2006. It was confirmed at the\nhearing that this replacement had in fact occurred.\nIn its Post-Hearing Response, Williams stated that it had no records to document its internal\nsearch of retired rectifiers. It also stated that based on the 8/30/05 cathodic protection readings,\nits engineer felt that there was sufficient influence from adjacent rectifiers to protect that section\nof pipeline. Respondent had not raised this argument earlier and failed to provide documentation\nin its Post-Hearing Response of cathodic protection readings. Furthermore, even if the company\nhad provided documentation of the 8/30/05 readings, this date was still three months after the\nrectifiers were found to be out of service, which is longer than the 2½-month period within\nwhich remedial action must be taken in order to be considered “prompt.” Accordingly, upon\nreview of all of the evidence, I find that Williams failed to take prompt remedial to correct the\ndeficiencies indicated by the failure of Rectifiers #185-5 A&B.\nRectifier #190-0\nIn its Reply, Williams stated that its inspector had observed this rectifier to be damaged and\ninoperative on January 13, 2004. A new rectifier was received and installed in April 2004. From\nJanuary to April 2005, Respondent recorded two readings that demonstrated decreasing\namperage. In mid-April, the groundbed was repaired to increase amperage.\nIn its Post-Hearing Response, Williams provided documentation showing that it had received a\nprice quotation for Rectifier #190-0 ten days after the rectifier was found to be inoperative. It\nalso provided a copy of its receiving report for the rectifier, showing that the company had paid\nfor it in March, a month before the new rectifier was repaired and back in service. For this\nrectifier, I find that Respondent took prompt remedial action to remedy the deficiency.\nTherefore, based upon review of all of the evidence, I withdraw that portion of Item 1 relating to\nRectifier #190-0.\nIn summary, after considering all the evidence, I find that Respondent failed to take prompt\nremedial action to correct inoperative Rectifiers #170-2, 170-5, 185-5-A, and 185-5-B. I further\nfind that Respondent did take prompt remedial action to replace inoperative Rectifier #190-0.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\n\n\n\n5\nrelated series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $41,000 for five instances of violation of\n§ 192.467(d).\nAs noted above, I have found that Williams failed to take prompt remedial action to correct\ncorrosion protection deficiencies in four out of the five instances alleged in the Notice (i.e.,\nRectifiers #170-2, 170-5, and 185-5A and 185-5B). In considering the civil penalty assessment\ncriteria, the Violation Report cited the interviews that OPS had conducted with Respondent’s\npersonnel, who indicated that repairs had not been promptly conducted due to the “capital budget\nprocess” and because a “root cause analysis” was still being performed. The Region considered\nthe gravity of the proposed violations when it stated in the Violation Report, “Any breakdown of\ncorrosion protection system [sic] must be repaired promptly to mitigate advancement of\ncorrosion . . .” It also considered that the repair delays had ranged from three months and eight\ndays to six months and two days.\nOn the one hand, the record shows that while some steps were taken to determine the cause of\nthe failure of these rectifiers and to acquire replacement equipment, they were not operational by\nthe end of the next inspection cycles. On the other hand, the fact that Williams promptly took\ncathodic protection readings for two of the inoperative rectifiers (i.e., Rectifiers #170-2 and 170-\n5) gave the company reasonable assurance that the nearby rectifiers were providing sufficient\nprotection while the damaged rectifiers were being replaced. Therefore, I think it is appropriate\nto mitigate the amount of the proposed penalty for these two violations.\nAs for Rectifiers #185-5A and 185-5B, Williams failed to take prompt pipe-to-soil readings after\nthe damaged rectifiers were first discovered on May 4, 2005. In fact, such readings were not\ntaken until August 30, more than three months after the problem was first discovered. Since\nsuch readings should have been taken immediately to determine whether the affected sections of\npipe were receiving adequate protection from adjacent rectifiers, the company cannot contend\nthat it was assiduously taking action to address these deficiencies. Therefore, I can see no basis\nfor mitigating this portion of the proposed penalty.\nIn summary, I have found that Williams violated § 192.467(d) with regard to four out of the five\nrectifiers cited in the Notice. As discussed above, I am proportionally reducing the proposed\ncivil penalty for Rectifier #190-0 by $8,200 (1/5 of $41,000), which allegation has been\nwithdrawn. I am also reducing the proposed civil penalty by half ($4,100) for both Rectifiers\n#170-2 and 170-5. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $24,600.\n\n\n\n6\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; The Financial\nDivision’s telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $24,600 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has the right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order, including\nany required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment for the civil penalty, the Final\nOrder becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is\nwaived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":23461}