{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120091007","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":"2009-08-06","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.457(a), 192.465(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120091007.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120091007.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120091007","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120091007","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.457(a),  192.465(d). The case was opened on 2009-08-06 and is reported as closed as of 2009-11-17. Proposed civil penalty: $952,500. Assessed civil penalty: $952,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120091007_FinalOrder_11172009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120091007/120091007_FinalOrder_11172009.pdf\n\n120091007_FinalOrder_11172009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120091007/120091007_FinalOrder_11172009_text.pdf\n\n120091007_NOPV PCP_08062009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120091007/120091007_NOPV%20PCP_08062009.pdf\n\n120091007_NOPV PCP_08062009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120091007/120091007_NOPV%20PCP_08062009_text.pdf\n\n120091007_Operator Response_09042009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120091007/120091007_Operator%20Response_09042009.pdf\n\n120091007_FinalOrder_11172009_text.pdf\n\nNOV 17 2009\nMr. Randall Barnard\nSenior Vice President\nWilliams Gas Pipeline Company, LLC\n2800 Post Oak Boulevard\nP.O. Box 1396\nHouston, TX 77251-1396\nRe: CPF No. 1-2009-1007\nDear Mr. Barnard:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation\nand assesses a civil penalty of $952,500. I acknowledge receipt of your wire transfer of\n$952,500 on September 4, 2009, and accept it as payment in full of the civil penalty. This case is\nnow closed. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49\nC.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[7005 0390 0005 6162 5111]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nWilliams Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, ) CPF No. 1-2009-1007\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nPursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted a post-accident\ninvestigation of a pipeline failure that occurred on September 14, 2008, in Appomattox, Virginia\n(Accident). Williams Gas Pipeline Company, LLC (Williams or Respondent) is the owner and\noperator of the 30-inch pipeline (Line B) that ruptured. Williams is a major transmission\npipeline operator in the United States and owns and operates approximately 14,200 miles of\nnatural gas pipeline through its subsidiaries, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation\n(Transco) and Northwest Pipeline GP.1\nAs a result of the Accident and the ensuing explosion and fire, several homes were damaged or\ndestroyed. Five people were hospitalized with first- and second-degree burns. Twenty-three\nfamilies living in the vicinity of the failure site were evacuated and dozens of fire-fighters and\npolice officers responded to the scene.2 On September 25, 2008, PHMSA issued a Corrective\nAction Order (CAO No. 1-2008-1004H) to Williams, requiring the company to take immediate\ncorrective actions to protect public safety.3\nAs a result of the post-accident investigation, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director),\nissued to Respondent, by letter dated August 6, 2009, a Notice of Probable Violation and\nProposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Respondent had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.457(a) and 192.465(d) and assessing a\ncivil penalty of $952,500 for the alleged violations.\n1 Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation operates a 10,500-mile natural gas pipeline system extending across\ntwelve states from Texas to New York City. Northwest Pipeline GP operates 3,900 miles of natural gas pipeline\nthrough Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado.\n2 See Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), pg. 4 (August 7, 2009) (on file with PHMSA).\n3 This Corrective Action Order (CAO) is currently open and will remain so until the required actions are deemed\ncomplete by the OPS Eastern Region Director.\n\n\n\n2\nWilliams responded to the Notice by letter dated September 4, 2009 (Response). The company\ndid not dispute the allegations of violation but clarified the remedial efforts it had undertaken in\nresponse to the Accident. Williams did not request a hearing and therefore waived its right to\none. Respondent paid the full proposed civil penalty of $952,500 on September 4, 2009.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nWilliams did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as\nfollows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.457(a), which states:\n§ 192.457 External corrosion control: Buried or submerged\npipelines installed before August 1, 1971.\n(a) Except for buried piping at compressor, regulator, and\nmeasuring stations, each buried or submerged transmission line installed\nbefore August 1, 1971, that has an effective external coating must be\ncathodically protected along the entire area that is effectively coated, in\naccordance with this subpart….\nThe Notice alleged that Williams violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.457(a) by failing to maintain cathodic\nprotection sufficient to control corrosion along that portion of its pipeline that had “an effective\nexternal coating.\n” Specifically, it alleged that Williams failed to maintain cathodic protection\nalong Line B in the area where the Accident occurred. Line B is a transmission pipeline\noriginally installed in 1955 with an external coating that required cathodic protection.\nDuring the accident investigation, PHMSA reviewed the company’s corrosion control records for\nthe pipe in the vicinity of the Accident site, including the records of Williams’ 2003 and 2006\nClose-Interval Survey (CIS) results. These records graphically depicted a dip in the pipe-to-soil\nreadings in the vicinity of the rupture site that were well below the -0.85 volt criteria of 49\nC.F.R. Part 192, Appendix D (“Criteria for Cathodic Protection and Determination of\nMeasurements”). The 2003 CIS readings for Line B in the vicinity of the Accident site were\n-0.530 and -0.690. The 2006 readings for the same test stations were measured at -0.542 and\n-0.399. These readings demonstrated insufficient cathodic protection in the area of the Accident.\nA third-party metallurgical lab tested a section of pipe after the Accident and confirmed that\nexternal corrosion was the cause of the rupture. Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.457(a) by failing to maintain cathodic\nprotection along the entire coated portion of Line B.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d), which states:\n§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring\n(d) Each operator shall take prompt remedial action to correct any\ndeficiencies indicated by the monitoring….\n\n\n\n3\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 192.465(d) by failing to take prompt remedial\naction to correct deficiencies indicated by the company’s external corrosion monitoring.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Williams failed to correct the cathodic protection\ndeficiencies discovered by the 2003 and 2006 CIS testing. In its Response, Williams did not\ndispute that it failed to correct the known corrosion problem. The company instead confirmed\ncertain remedial actions it had conducted prior to the Accident.\nWilliams stated that it had attempted to address the low readings by installing a remote ground\nbed near this location in 2004. Having again received low readings from the 2006 CIS, the\ncompany then installed a linear anode in June 2007. However, follow-up readings were not\ntaken in 2007 or 2008 and the pipeline ruptured in September 2008. In its Response, Williams\nstated that an in-line inspection for Line B was completed on June 23, 2008.4 Williams also\nstated that the results of this in-line inspection were not received from the vendor until August\nSeptember 14, 2008, as a result of Williams’ failure to correct the low readings. Accordingly,\nupon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d)\nby failing to take prompt remedial action to correct the cathodic protection deficiencies\ndiscovered on Line B.\n15, 2008, and did not indicate an immediate safety problem.5 Unfortunately, the line ruptured on\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken 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\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 penalty of $570,000 for the violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.457(a) (Item 1),\nfor Williams’ failure to maintain cathodic protection sufficient to control corrosion along that\nportion of its pipeline system with “an effective external coating.” Williams did not contest this\nallegation of violation. I have reviewed and considered all of the evidence in the record,\nincluding, but not limited to, the seriousness of the injuries, the property damage, and the\nevacuation of families in the vicinity of the Accident. The accident in this case serves as a\n4 Response, at 1.\n5 Id.\n\n\n\n4\ngraphic illustration of the tragic consequences that can result from a pipeline operator’s long-\nterm failure to address known corrosion problems. Accordingly, I find the proposed civil penalty\namount justified and assess a civil penalty of $570,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.457(a).\nThe Notice further proposed a penalty of $382,500 for the violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d)\n(Item 2), for Respondent’s failure to take prompt remedial action to correct deficiencies indicated\nby the company’s own external corrosion monitoring. Williams did not contest this allegation\nbut asserted that it had taken measures to address corrosion problems, both before and after the\nAccident. Despite such efforts, the company failed to conduct follow-up inspections to correct\nthe deficiencies detected by the monitoring.\nIt is incumbent upon all pipeline operators not only to monitor external corrosion on their lines\nbut also to act promptly to address deficiencies that become manifest as a result of monitoring. I\nhave reviewed and considered all of the evidence in the record, including, but not limited to, the\nextent of the injuries and property damage, the evacuation of families in the vicinity of the\nAccident, the length of time that external corrosion problems persisted on Line B, as well as the\nactions Williams took in response to the corrosion, and find that the proposed civil penalty is\njustified. Accordingly, I assess a civil penalty of $382,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.465(d).\nTherefore, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $952,500, which Respondent has already\nremitted to PHMSA.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be effective upon receipt.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":12265}