{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220051003","title":"CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA, L.L.C. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2005-01-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.225(a), 192.243(f), 192.465(a), 192.475, 192.481(a), 192.5, 192.614, 192.615(c), 192.619, 192.705(b), 192.706(a), 192.709(a), 192.731(a), 192.731(c), 192.736(c), 192.745(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220051003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220051003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220051003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220051003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA, L.L.C.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.225(a),  192.243(f),  192.465(a),  192.475,  192.481(a),  192.5,  192.614,  192.615(c),  192.619,  192.705(b),  192.706(a),  192.709(a),  192.731(a),  192.731(c),  192.736(c),  192.745(a). The case was opened on 2005-01-07 and is reported as closed as of 2009-12-03. Proposed civil penalty: $70,000. Assessed civil penalty: $65,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220051003_FinalOrder_08122009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220051003/220051003_FinalOrder_08122009.pdf\n\n220051003_FinalOrder_08122009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220051003/220051003_FinalOrder_08122009_text.pdf\n\n220051003_FinalOrder_08122009_text.pdf\n\nAUG 12 2009\nVIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND FAX TO: (304) 353-5234 [7005 0390 0005 6162 5692]\nMr. Michael A. John\nSenior Vice President - Drilling and Operations\nChesapeake Appalachia, LLC\n900 Pennsylvania Avenue\nP.O. Box 6070\nCharleston, WV 25362-0070\nRE: CPF No. 2-2005-1003\nDear Mr. John:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the\nabove-referenced case. It makes findings of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $65,000, and\nspecifies certain actions that need to be taken by Chesapeake to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty\nhas been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director,\nSouthern Region, PHMSA, this enforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of the Final\nOrder constitutes service of that document 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: Ms. Tara D. Shumate Lee, Counsel for Columbia Natural Resources, LLC\nMr. Mark A. T. Williams, Director, Pipelines, Columbia Natural Resources, LLC\nMs. Linda Daugherty, Director, Southern Region, OPS\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 )\nChesapeake Appalachia, LLC, ) CPF No. 2-2005-1003\nf/k/a Columbia Natural Resources, LLC, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n________________________________________ )\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween June 28 and July 2, 2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the\nResearch and Special Programs Administration,\n1 Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), Southern\nRegion, conducted an inspection of the natural gas pipeline facilities and records of Columbia\nNatural Resources, LLC (Columbia or Respondent), in Prestonsburg, Kentucky.2 of the inspection, Respondent owned and operated oil and natural gas wells and pipelines in\nseveral states, including Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas, Colorado, North\nDakota, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico.\nAs of the date\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated January 7, 2005, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that Respondent committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and\nproposed assessing a total civil penalty of $70,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed that Respondent take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nIn a letter dated February 4, 2005, Respondent submitted a Response to the Notice (Response).\nRespondent contested certain allegations of violation, requested clarification of portions of the\nproposed compliance order, provided information concerning the corrective actions it had taken,\nand proposed a possible consent order to resolve the Notice. A hearing was held on May 10,\n2005, in Atlanta, Georgia, with Renita K. Bivins, Esquire, Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA,\n1 Effective February 20, 2005, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) was created\nto further the highest degree of safety in pipeline transportation and hazardous materials transportation. See, section\n108 of the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-426, 118 Stat.\n2423-2429 (November 30, 2004)). See also, 70 Fed. Reg. 8299 (February 18, 2005) redelegating the pipeline safety\nfunctions of the Research and Special Programs Administration to the Administrator, PHMSA.\n2 According to documents supplied by Respondent, Columbia Natural Resources, LLC, merged with Columbia\nEnergy Resources, LLC , to form Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC (Chesapeake), on February 1, 2006.\n\n\n\n2\npresiding. Respondent was represented by counsel at the hearing. On June 8, 2005, Respondent\nprovided additional information and requested a waiver of certain regulatory requirements\npursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.211(i). PHMSA granted Chesapeake a special permit to address\nthese issues on July 6, 2007.3\nFINDINGS 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. § 192.614, which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.614 Damage prevention program.\n(a) . . . [Each operator of a buried pipeline must carry out, in\naccordance with this section, a written program to prevent damage to that\npipeline from excavation activities . . .\n(b) An operator may comply with any of the requirements of\nparagraph (c) of this section through participation in a public service\nprogram, such as a one-call system, but such participation does not relieve\nthe operator of responsibility for compliance with this section . . .\n(c) The damage prevention program required by paragraph (a) of\nthis section must, at a minimum:\n(1) Include the identity, on a current basis, of persons who normally\nengage in excavation activities in the area in which the pipeline is located.\n(2) Provides for notification of the public in the vicinity of the\npipeline and actual notification of the persons identified in paragraph (c)(1)\nof this section of the following as often as needed to make them aware of the\ndamage prevention program:\n(i) The program’s existence and purpose; and\n(ii) How to learn the location of underground pipelines before\nexcavation activities are begun.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.614 by failing to carry out a\nwritten program to prevent damage to its pipeline from excavation activities. Under § 192.614,\npipeline operators are required to maintain records identifying, on a current basis, persons who\nnormally engage in excavation activities in the area in which the operator’s pipelines are located.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that during the inspection, Respondent failed to provide a list of\nexcavators in the area of its pipeline or other records to demonstrate that its damage prevention\nprogram met all regulatory requirements. Respondent advised OPS that it relied on the Kentucky\nOne-Call System to identify excavation activities in the area in which its pipelines were located.\nRespondent contended that its damage prevention program satisfied the requirements of § 192.614.\n3 DMS Docket PHMSA – 2006-26532. The special permit pertains to allegations discussed in Item 3 below.\n\n\n\n3\nRespondent submitted documentation from Kentucky Underground Protection, Inc. (KY One-\nCall) certifying Respondent’s participation in the state’s one-call program, including a list of\nexcavators and Respondent’s form letter notifying excavators of the existence of the pipeline.\nBased on this record, I find that Respondent participates in a one-call system and has a damage\nprevention program to communicate with excavators notifying them that Respondent is the\ncurrent operator and how to contact the company if the pipeline is damaged at any time during\nexcavation activities. Therefore, this allegation of violation is withdrawn.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(c), which states:\n§ 192.615 Emergency plans.\n(a) . . .\n(c) Each operator shall establish and maintain liaison with appropriate\nfire, police, and other public officials . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(c) by failing to establish and\nmaintain liaison with appropriate fire, police, and other public officials. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Columbia was unable to provide records to demonstrate any liaison activities with\npublic officials in years 2002 and 2003. During the hearing, Respondent submitted evidence of\nliaison activities with fire, police and other appropriate officials. However, the evidence related\nto activities that occurred after the inspection occurred, not during the relevant 2002-2003 time\nperiod. Respondent failed to provide any evidence that it had established and maintained liaison\nwith the appropriate officials during such time. Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(c) by failing to establish and\nmaintain liaison with appropriate fire, police and other public officials in years 2002 and 2003.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619, which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.619 Maximum allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic\npipelines.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may\noperate a segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a pressure that exceeds the\nlowest of the following:\n(1) The design pressure of the weakest element in the segment,\ndetermined in accordance with subparts C and D of this part . . .\n(2) The pressure obtained by dividing the pressure to which the\nsegment was tested after construction as follows:\n(i) . . .\n(ii) For steel pipe operated at 100 p.s.i. (689 kPa) gage or more, the\ntest pressure is divided by a factor determined in accordance with the\nfollowing table:\n\n\n\n4\nFactors, segment -\nClass\nlocation\nInstalled before\n(Nov. 12, 1970)\nInstalled after\n(Nov.11, 1970)\nCovered\nunder\n§ 192.14\n1 1.1 1.1 1.25\n2 1.25 1.25 1.25\n3 1.4 1.5 1.5\n4 1.4 1.5 1.5\n(3) The highest actual operating pressure to which the segment was\nsubjected during the 5 years preceding July 1, 1970 (or in the case of\noffshore gathering lines, July 1, 1976), unless the segment was tested in\naccordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section after July 1, 1965 (or in the\ncase of offshore gathering lines, July, 1971), or the segment was uprated in\naccordance with subpart K of this part.\n(4) The pressure determined by the operator to be the maximum safe\npressure after considering the history of the segment, particularly known\ncorrosion and the actual operating pressure.\n(b) No person may operate a segment to which paragraph (a)(4) of\nthis section is applicable, unless over-pressure protective devices are installed\non the segment in a manner that will prevent the maximum allowable\noperating pressure from being exceeded, in accordance with § 192.195.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619 by operating a steel pipeline\nfor which it could not substantiate that it had established an appropriate maximum allowable\noperating pressure (MAOP). In addition, it alleged that Columbia had operated a pipeline for\nwhich it could not show that over-pressure protection devices had been installed in order to\nprevent the MAOP from being exceeded. Respondent did not contest the allegations of\nviolation. Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619, as set forth above.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(a) and (b), which\nstate:\n§ 192.705 Transmission lines: Patrolling.\n(a) Each operator shall have a patrol program to observe surface\nconditions on and adjacent to the transmission line right-of-way for\nindications of leaks, construction activity, and other factors affecting safety\nand operation.\n(b) The frequency of patrols is determined by the size of the line, the\noperating pressures, the class location, terrain, weather, and other relevant\n\n\n\n5\nfactors, but intervals between patrols may not be longer than prescribed in\nthe following table:\nMaximum interval between patrols\nClass\nlocation\nof line\nAt highway and railroad crossings At all other places\n1, 2 7½ months; but at least twice each\ncalendar year\n15 months; but at least\nonce each calendar year\n3 4½ months; but at least four times\neach calendar year\n7½ months; but at least\ntwice each calendar\n4 4½ months; but at least four times\neach calendar year.\n4½ months; but at least\nfour times each calendar\nyear\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(a-b) by failing to conduct\npatrols of its transmission pipeline within the time periods set forth in the table above during\ncalendar years 2002 and 2003. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Columbia failed to produce\nrecords verifying that the patrols had been conducted within such time periods. Respondent did\nnot submit any evidence refuting these allegations. Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(a-b) by failing to conduct patrols\nof its transmission pipeline within the applicable time periods set forth in the table above and the\ninspector’s Violation Report.\n4\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.706, which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.706 Transmission lines: Leakage surveys.\nLeakage surveys of a transmission line must be conducted at intervals\nnot exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. However, in\nthe case of a transmission line which transports gas in conformity with\n§192.625 without an odor or odorant, leakage surveys using leak detector\nequipment must be conducted-\n(a) In Class 3 locations, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at\nleast twice each calendar year...\nThe Notice alleged that Columbia violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.706 by failing to conduct leakage\nsurveys at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that Respondent’s leakage survey records showed that the company had failed\nto complete all of the required surveys and that it had exceeded the maximum interval between\n4 Violation Report, at Paragraphs 11-12.\n\n\n\n6\nleakage surveys in 2002 and 2003. At the hearing, Respondent did not have leakage survey\nrecords to show that it had completed all of the required leakage surveys in years 2002 and 2003.\nAccordingly, upon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.706 by failing to conduct all of required leakage surveys of its transmission pipeline and\nthat it exceeded the maximum interval between surveys in years 2002 and 2003.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a), which states:\n§ 192.745 Valve maintenance: Transmission lines.\n(a) Each transmission line valve that might be required during any\nemergency must be inspected and partially operated at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a) by failing to inspect and\npartially operate transmission line valves on its pipeline that might be required during an\nemergency, at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once each calendar year.\nSpecifically, it alleged that Columbia’s records failed to show any inspections for such valves in\nyears 2001, 2002 and 2003. Neither during the inspection nor at the hearing did Respondent\nprovide a valve list or designate alternative valves for emergency use. Accordingly, upon\nconsideration of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R § 192.745(a) by\nfailing to inspect and partially operate transmission line valves at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year.\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.225(a-b) and 192.227,\nwhich state, in relevant part:\n§ 192.225 Welding procedures.\n(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder in accordance\nwith welding procedures qualified under section 5 of API 1104 . . . to\nproduce welds meeting the requirements of this subpart. The quality of the\ntest welds used to qualify welding procedures shall be determined by\ndestructive testing in accordance with the applicable welding standard(s).\n(b) Each welding procedure must be recorded in detail, including the\nresults of the qualifying tests. This record must be retained and followed\nwhenever the procedure is used.\n§ 192.227 Qualification of welders.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each welder\nmust be qualified in accordance with section 6 of API 1104 (incorporated by\nreference, see § 192.7) or section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure\nVessel Code (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7). However, a welder\nqualified under an earlier edition than listed in appendix A of this part may\nweld but may not requalify under that earlier edition.\n(b) A welder may qualify to perform welding on pipe to be operated\nat a pressure that produces a hoop stress of less than 20 percent of SMYS by\n\n\n\n7\nperforming an acceptable test weld, for the process to be used, under the test\nset forth in section I of Appendix C of this part. Each welder who is to\nmake a welded service line connection to a main must first perform an\nacceptable test weld under section II of Appendix C of this part as a\nrequirement of the qualifying test.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.225(a-b) by failing to record\ncertain welding procedures and to retain such records whenever the procedures were used. In\naddition, it alleged that Columbia violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.227 by failing to ensure that welders\nwere qualified in accordance with industry standards. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nColumbia installed approximately 8,500 feet of new pipe in 2003 but failed to produce records of\nthe welding procedures used or the qualification records of the welders performing the welds.\nRespondent failed to produce any records or documentation demonstrating compliance.\nAccordingly, upon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§§ 192.225(a-b) by failing to record welding procedures and to retain such records whenever the\nprocedures were used and violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.227 by failing to ensure that welders were\nproperly qualified.\nItem 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.459 and 192.465(a),\nwhich state, in relevant part:\n§ 192.459 External corrosion control: Examination of buried pipeline\nwhen exposed.\nWhenever an operator has knowledge that any portion of a buried\npipeline is exposed, the exposed portion must be examined for evidence of\nexternal corrosion if the pipe is bare, or if the coating is deteriorated. If\nexternal corrosion requiring remedial action under §§ 192.483 through\n192.489 is found, the operator shall investigate circumferentially and\nlongitudinally beyond the exposed portion (by visual examination, indirect\nmethod, or both) to determine whether additional corrosion requiring remedial\naction exists in the vicinity of the exposed portion.\n§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each pipeline that is under cathodic protection must be tested at\nleast once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to\ndetermine whether the cathodic protection meets the requirements of Sec.\n192.463. . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.459 by failing to examine buried\npipe that has been exposed in order to look for evidence of external corrosion. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that Columbia had exposed sections of its P2 pipeline in 2003 but could not\nprovide records to show that the exposed pipe had been examined for evidence of corrosion. The\nNotice also alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a) by failing to test each\npipeline that was under cathodic protection at least once each calendar years, but with intervals\nnot exceeding 15 months, to determine whether the cathodic protection was adequate.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Columbia was unable to provide records showing that\n\n\n\n8\nannual cathodic protection surveys of approximately 20,300 feet of the KC-20 pipeline and the\nKnox Compressor Station piping were completed in 2001, 2002 or 2003. At the time of the\ninspection, Respondent advised that the affected section of KC-20 pipeline and the Knox\nCompressor Station had been recently added to the local district’s responsibilities and that it had\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.459 and 192.465(a) by failing\nnot yet completely addressed cathodic protection issues.5 Accordingly, upon consideration of all\nto examine exposed pipe and to test pipe for cathode protection, as described above.\nItem 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.475(a-b), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.475 Internal corrosion control: General.\n(a) Corrosive gas may not be transported by pipeline, unless the\ncorrosive effect of the gas on the pipeline has been investigated and steps\nhave been taken to minimize internal corrosion.\n(b) Whenever any pipe is removed from a pipeline for any reason,\nthe internal surface must be inspected for evidence of corrosion . . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.475(a-b) by transporting corrosive\ngas without investigating the corrosive effect of the gas and taking steps to minimize internal\ncorrosion. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Columbia transported untreated “wet” gas from\nproduction wells but was unable to provide records showing that it had investigated the corrosive\neffect of the gas or had taken steps to minimize internal corrosion. It further alleged that the\ncompany had removed sections of the P2 pipeline in 2003 but that it was unable to provide\nrecords showing that it had examined the internal surface of such pipe for evidence of internal\ncorrosion. Respondent failed to provide any evidence rebutting these allegations. Accordingly,\nupon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.475(a-\nb) by transporting corrosive gas without investigating the corrosive effect of the gas and by\nremoving sections of the P2 pipeline without showing that it had examined the internal surface of\nthe pipe for internal corrosion.\nItem 10: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.5, which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.5 Class locations.\n(a) This section classifies pipeline locations for purposes of this\npart. The following criteria apply to classifications under this section.\n(1) A “class location unit” is an onshore area that extends 220\nyards (200 meters) on either side of the centerline of any continuous 1-\nmile (1.6 kilometers) length of pipeline.\n(2) Each separate dwelling unit in a multiple dwelling unit\nbuilding is counted as a separate building intended for human occupancy.\n(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, pipeline\nlocations are classified as follows:\n(1) A Class 1 location . . .\n5 Violation Report, at Paragraph 14b.\n\n\n\n9\n(2) A Class 2 location . . .\n(3) A Class 3 location . . .\n(4) A Class 4 location . . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.5 by failing to determine class\nlocations for its pipeline system. Specifically, it alleged that Columbia was unable to produce\nrecords showing the class locations of its gathering and pipeline facilities. Respondent submitted\nevidence showing that it had undertaken class location studies subsequent to the inspection.\nAccordingly, upon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.5 by failing to determine class locations for its pipeline system.\nItem 11: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §192.243, which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.243 Nondestructive testing.\n(a) Nondestructive testing of welds must be performed by any\nprocess, other than trepanning, that will clearly indicate defects that may\naffect the integrity of the weld.\n(b) Nondestructive testing of welds must be performed:\n(1) In accordance with written procedures; and\n(2) By persons who have been trained and qualified in the established\nprocedures and with the equipment employed in testing.\n(c) . . .\n(f) When nondestructive testing is required under § 192.241(b), each\noperator must retain, for the life of the pipeline, a record showing by milepost,\nengineering station, or by geographic feature, the number of girth welds made,\nthe number nondestructively tested, the number rejected, and the disposition\nof the rejects.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.243 by failing to perform\nnondestructive testing (NDT) of welds by persons who were properly qualified. Specifically, it\nalleged that Columbia was unable to provide qualification records for the NDT technicians who\ntested the welds on approximately 8,500 feet of new pipeline installed in 2003. The Notice also\nalleged that the company failed to retain, for the life of the pipeline, NDT records showing by\nmilepost, engineering station, or other geographic feature, the number of girth welds made, the\nnumber nondestructively tested, the number rejected, and the disposition of the rejects.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that for the new pipe installed in 2003, Columbia’s records\nlacked specificity as to the milepost, engineering station, geographic feature, the number of girth\nwelds made, the number nondestructively tested, the number rejected and the disposition of the\nrejects.\nRespondent failed to produce any records or documentation demonstrating compliance.\nAccordingly, upon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.243 by failing to perform NDT of welds by persons who were properly qualified and by\nfailing to maintain adequate NDT records.\n\n\n\n10\nItem 12: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.731(a), which states:\n§ 192.731 Compressor stations: Inspection and testing of relief devices.\n(a) Except for rupture discs, each pressure relieving device in a\ncompressor station must be inspected and tested in accordance with\n§§ 192.739 and 192.743, and must be operated periodically to determine\nthat it opens at the correct set pressure.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.731(a) by failing to inspect and test\neach pressure relieving device in a compressor station in accordance with §§ 192.739 and\n192.743. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Columbia was unable to provide records showing\nthat the relief devices at the company’s Knox Compressor Station had been inspected and tested\nin years 2001, 2002, and 2003. Respondent failed to submit any evidence rebutting the\nallegations in the Notice. Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.731(a) by failing to inspect and test each pressure relieving\ndevice in a compressor station in accordance with §§ 192.739 and 192.743.\nItem 13: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.731(c), which states:\n§ 192.731 Compressor stations: Inspection and testing of relief devices.\n(a) . . .\n(c) Each remote control shutdown device must be inspected and\ntested at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, to determine that it functions properly.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.731(c) by failing to inspect and\ntest, at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once each calendar year, each remote\ncontrol shutdown device to determine that it functioned properly. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Columbia was unable to provide records showing that each emergency shutdown\nsystem (ESD) at the Knox Compressor Station had been inspected and tested in 2002. At the\nhearing, Respondent failed to produce any records or documentation demonstrating compliance.\nAccordingly, upon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.731(c) by failing to inspect and test ESD devices at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but\nat least once each calendar year.\nItem 14: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.736, which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.736 Compressor stations: Gas detection.\n(a) Not later than September 16, 1996, each compressor building in a\ncompressor station must have a fixed gas detection and alarm system . . .\n(c) Each gas detection and alarm system required by this section\nmust be maintained to function properly. The maintenance must include\nperformance tests.\n\n\n\n11\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.736 by failing to maintain each gas\ndetection and alarm system in a compressor building so that they functioned properly, including\nthrough performance testing. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Columbia was unable to\nprovide records showing that the gas detection and alarm system at the Knox Compressor Station\nhad been performance tested in 2002. At the hearing, Respondent failed to produce any records\nor documentation demonstrating compliance. Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.736 by failing to maintain each gas\ndetection and alarm system in a compressor building so that it functioned properly, including\nthrough performance testing.\nItem 15: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(a), which states:\n§ 192.709 Transmission lines: Record keeping.\nEach operator shall maintain the following records for transmission\nlines for the periods specified:\n(a) The date, location, and description of each repair made to pipe\n(including pipe-to-pipe connections) must be retained for as long as the pipe\nremains in service.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(a) by failing to maintain\nrecords showing the date, location, and description of each repair made to pipe and to retain such\nrecords for as long as the pipe remains in service. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Columbia\nwas unable to provide records showing what repairs had been made on its gathering and\ntransmission pipeline sections in years 2001, 2002 and 2003. Respondent failed to submit any\nevidence rebutting the allegations in the Notice. Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(a) by failing to maintain records\nshowing the date, location, and description of each repair made to its gathering and transmission\npipeline sections in years 2001, 2002 and 2003.\nItem 16: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a), which states:\n§ 192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline\nthat is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as\nfollows:\nIf the pipeline\nis located:\nThen the frequency of inspection is:\nOnshore At least once every 3 calendar\nyears, but with intervals not\nexceeding 39 months\nOffshore At least once each calendar year,\nbut with intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths . . . .\n\n\n\n12\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a) by failing to inspect, at least\nonce every three years but with intervals not exceeding 39 months, each of its onshore pipelines\nor portions of its pipelines exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Columbia was unable to provide records showing that it had\nconducted such inspections in years 2001, 2002, 2003 or 2004. Respondent failed to submit any\nevidence rebutting the allegations in the Notice. Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a), as Respondent failed to\ninspect, at least once every three years but with intervals not exceeding 39 months, each of its\nonshore pipelines or portions of its pipelines exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of\natmospheric corrosion.\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 a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of\nviolations.\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of a civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s ability to pay the penalty and any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil\npenalty of $70,000 for violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192.\nItem 1 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.614, for\nRespondent’s failure to identify a current list of persons who normally engage in excavation\nactivities in the areas in which the company’s pipelines are located. Based on a demonstration of\nregulatory compliance during the hearing, this allegation of violation is withdrawn.\nAccordingly, the related proposed civil penalty is withdrawn.\nItem 2 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(c),\nfor Respondent’s failure to establish and maintain liaison with appropriate fire, police, and other\npublic officials. An objective of this regulation is to assure that responders who could be\ninvolved in an emergency are prepared to recognize and deal with such situation in an\nexpeditious and safe manner. When an operator fails to establish and maintain liaison, the\nproper procedures and techniques to follow may not be clear to those responsible for responding\nto a natural gas pipeline emergency. Respondent has not shown any circumstance that would\nhave prevented or justified its failure to maintain records of its liaison activities with public\n\n\n\n13\nofficials during the years 2002 and 2003. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000.\nItem 3 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.619, for\nRespondent’s operations of a steel pipeline for which it could not substantiate that it had\nestablished an appropriate MAOP. The penalty was also proposed for Respondent’s failure to\nprovide records to demonstrate that over-pressure protection devices had been installed on each\npipe segment to prevent exceeding the MAOP. Respondent did not contest the civil penalty but\nsought a Waiver of Compliance for Item 3.\nColumbia submitted a Petition for Waiver (now referred to as a special permit) on June 8, 2005,\nseeking relief from the requirements of § 192.619 and asserting that it did not have all the data\nand records needed to establish MAOP using the methods prescribed in the regulations.\nPHMSA issued Columbia’s successor, Chesapeake, a special permit on July 6, 2007. The permit\nallows Chesapeake to use alternate methods to establish MAOPs for its regulated pipeline\nsegments.\nWith the special permit, Chesapeake will achieve compliance with respect to this violation.\nNevertheless, the company’s post-inspection corrective action does not justify reducing the civil\npenalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I\nassess Respondent a civil penalty of $10,000.\nItem 4 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(a-\nb), for failing to conduct patrols of its transmission pipeline within the required time periods\nduring years 2002 and 2003 and by exceeding the maximum intervals between patrols in those\nyears. Respondent did not contest the civil penalty amount but provided a spreadsheet to\ndemonstrate how it will keep patrol records in the future. Pipelines must be patrolled to observe\nsurface conditions for indications of leaks, construction activity, and other factors affecting\nsafety and operation and for ensuring against pipeline encroachments. Maintaining a system of\ninspection ensures reasonable promptness in the detection of all surface conditions on and\nadjacent to the pipeline right-of-way that could affect the safe operation of the pipeline.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $5,000.\nItem 5 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.706, for\nRespondent’s failure to conduct leakage surveys at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least\nonce each calendar year. Verification that leak surveys are being properly conducted is an\nessential requirement to the safe operation of a pipeline. Without performing leakage surveys at\nthe required intervals, a leak may not be detected and present a potentially hazardous situation.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $5,000.\nItem 6 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a),\nfor Respondent’s failure to inspect and partially operate transmission line valves on its pipeline\nthat might be required during an emergency, at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least\n\n\n\n14\nonce each calendar year. Respondent also failed to provide a valve list or designate alternative\nvalves for emergency use. These valves can be critical during an emergency. Inoperative or\nmalfunctioning valves may delay appropriate emergency response, thereby exposing the public\nand the environment to greater risks of injury and damage. Respondent did not contest the civil\npenalty but provided a spreadsheet to demonstrate how it will keep valve maintenance records in\nthe future. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I\nassess Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000.\nItem 8 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.459, for\nRespondent’s failure to examine buried pipe that had been exposed in order to look for evidence\nof external corrosion, and for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a), for Respondent’s failure to test\neach pipeline that was under cathodic protection at least once each calendar years, but with\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine whether the cathodic protection was adequate.\nProper documentation includes test protocols that have been developed to measure corrosive\nconstituents and documented analysis of the tests results. Conducting timely evaluations of\nexposed areas of buried pipeline for evidence of corrosion is a key part of pipeline surveillance\nbecause washouts and other circumstances that expose buried pipelines may involve damage to\nor deterioration of the coating. The risk of corrosion on the pipeline significantly increases\nwithout proper cathodic protection systems. Preventive maintenance is critical to the safety of the\npublic, environment and property. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000.\nItem 10 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.5, for\nRespondent’s failure to determine","truncated":true,"body_characters":50973}