{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120121019","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":"2012-08-20","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.225(a), 192.475(b), 192.603(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120121019.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120121019.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120121019","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120121019","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.225(a),  192.475(b),  192.603(b). The case was opened on 2012-08-20 and is reported as closed as of 2013-06-14. Proposed civil penalty: $42,500. Assessed civil penalty: $42,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120121019_Final Order_06142013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121019/120121019_Final%20Order_06142013.pdf\n\n120121019_Final Order_06142013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121019/120121019_Final%20Order_06142013_text.pdf\n\n120121019_NOPV_PCP_PCO_08202012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121019/120121019_NOPV_PCP_PCO_08202012.pdf\n\n120121019_NOPV_PCP_PCO_08202012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121019/120121019_NOPV_PCP_PCO_08202012_text.pdf\n\n120121019_Operator_Response_and_Request_for_Time_Extension_09272012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121019/120121019_Operator_Response_and_Request_for_Time_Extension_09272012.pdf\n\n120121019_Final Order_06142013_text.pdf\n\nJUNE 14, 2013\nMr. Rory L. Miller\nSenior Vice President – Atlantic Gulf\nTranscontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC\n2800 Post Oak Blvd.\nHouston, TX 77056\nRe: CPF No. 1-2012-1019\nDear Mr. Miller:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $42,500. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of\nthe full penalty amount, by wire transfer, dated October 3, 2012. It further finds that\nTranscontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, has completed the actions specified in the\nNotice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. This enforcement action is therefore\nclosed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing,\nor 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 E. Coy, P.E., Director, Eastern Region, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nMr. Alan S. Armstrong, President, The Williams Companies, Inc., 2800 Post Oak Blvd,\nHouston, TX 77056\nRandall R. Conklin, Esq., General Counsel, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company,\nLLC 2800 Post Oak Blvd., Houston, TX 77056\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\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 )\n)\n)\nTranscontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, )\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________________)\n) CPF No. 1-2012-1019\nFINAL ORDER\nDuring the week of March 26, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities of Transcontinental Gas\nPipe Line Company, LLC1 (Transcontinental or Respondent), a subsidiary of The Williams\nCompanies, Inc., in Ellicott City, Maryland. Transcontinental is a major provider of natural gas\nto the northeastern and southeastern states, operating a 10,000-mile pipeline system extending\nfrom South Texas to New York.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated August 20, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty,\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice), and, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, a warning of\nanother probable violation. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding\nthat Transcontinental had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed\nassessing a civil penalty of $42,500 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed\nordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning item\nrequired no further action, but warned the operator to take appropriate corrective action or be\nsubject to potential enforcement action.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated September 27, 2012, indicating it was not\ncontesting the allegations of violation in the Notice but requesting additional time to satisfy the\nterms of the Proposed Compliance Order (Response). Transcontinental paid the proposed civil\npenalty of $42,500, as provided in 49 C.F.R. § 190.227, by wire transfer dated October 3, 2012.\nPayment of the penalty serves to close those items in the Notice with prejudice to Respondent.\nBy letter dated December 11, 2012, the company provided additional information regarding the\nsteps it had taken to address the terms in the Proposed Compliance Order.\n1 Transcontinental was formally known as Williams Gas Pipeline-Transco.\n2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report) (August 20, 2012) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Transcontinental did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated\n49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b), which states:\n§ 192.603 General provisions.\n(a) ….\n(b) Each operator shall keep records necessary to administer the\nprocedures established under § 192.605.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b) by failing to keep the\nnecessary records to verify the adequate depth of cover for a buried transmission line, as required\nunder 49 C.F.R. § 192.327. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Transcontinental had no records\nto confirm the depth of cover for the Granite Road Pipeline Replacement Project in 2010.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b) by failing to keep the\nnecessary records to verify the adequate depth of cover for a buried transmission line, as required\nunder 49 C.F.R. § 192.327.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.475(b), which states:\n§ 192.475 Internal corrosion control: General.\n(a) . . .\n(b) Whenever any pipe is removed from a pipeline for any reason, the\ninternal surface must be inspected for evidence of corrosion. If internal\nsurface is found -\n(1) The adjacent pipe must be investigated to determine the extent of\ninternal corrosion;\n(2) Replacement must be made to the extent required by the applicable\nparagraphs of §192.485, 192.487, or 192.489; and\n(3) Steps must be taken to minimize the internal corrosion.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.475(b) by failing to inspect the\ninternal surface of a section of cut-out pipe for evidence of internal corrosion. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that Transcontinental failed to perform an internal inspection of a pipe cut out on\nNovember 10, 2010, as documented by the company’s own inspection report #2010-TR-12515.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.475(b) by failing to inspect the\ninternal surface of a section of cut-out pipe for evidence of internal corrosion.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\n\n\n\n3\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.3 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under\n49 U.S.C. § 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; and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $42,500 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b), for failing to keep the necessary records to verify adequate depth of\ncover for a buried transmission line. Transcontinental paid the proposed penalty, which serves to\nclose this Item with prejudice and authorizes PHMSA to make a finding of violation.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $37,500 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.475(b), for failing to inspect the internal surface of a section of cut-out pipe for\nevidence of internal corrosion. Transcontinental paid the proposed penalty, which serves to\nclose this Item with prejudice and authorizes PHMSA to make a finding of violation.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of of $37,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.475(b).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $42,500, which has been paid in\nfull.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(b). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director indicates that\nRespondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance order:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.605(b) (Item 1), Respondent has verified the\ndepth of cover for the three pipelines replaced on the 2010 Granite Road Pipeline\n3 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat.\n1904, January 3, 2012, increased the civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to $200,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.\n\n\n\n4\nReplacement Project. Additionally, Transcontinental has updated its procedure,\nSpecification 814-0503: TGPL Onshore As-Built Survey, to include the requirement\nof an as-built depth of cover verification report.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,\nthe compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 3, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be warning\nitems. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.225(a) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to properly\nreference the correct edition of ASME Section IX in its welding procedures.\nIf OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject\nto future enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":11937}