# CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA, L.L.C. — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

220051003_FinalOrder_08122009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220051003/220051003_FinalOrder_08122009.pdf

220051003_FinalOrder_08122009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220051003/220051003_FinalOrder_08122009_text.pdf

220051003_FinalOrder_08122009_text.pdf

AUG 12 2009
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND FAX TO: (304) 353-5234 [7005 0390 0005 6162 5692]
Mr. Michael A. John
Senior Vice President - Drilling and Operations
Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC
900 Pennsylvania Avenue
P.O. Box 6070
Charleston, WV 25362-0070
RE: CPF No. 2-2005-1003
Dear Mr. John:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the
above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $65,000, and
specifies certain actions that need to be taken by Chesapeake to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty
has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director,
Southern Region, PHMSA, this enforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of the Final
Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Tara D. Shumate Lee, Counsel for Columbia Natural Resources, LLC
Mr. Mark A. T. Williams, Director, Pipelines, Columbia Natural Resources, LLC
Ms. Linda Daugherty, Director, Southern Region, OPS



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
________________________________________
In the Matter of )
Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, ) CPF No. 2-2005-1003
f/k/a Columbia Natural Resources, LLC, )
)
)
)
Respondent. )
________________________________________ )
FINAL ORDER
Between June 28 and July 2, 2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the
Research and Special Programs Administration,
1 Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), Southern
Region, conducted an inspection of the natural gas pipeline facilities and records of Columbia
Natural Resources, LLC (Columbia or Respondent), in Prestonsburg, Kentucky.2 of the inspection, Respondent owned and operated oil and natural gas wells and pipelines in
several states, including Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas, Colorado, North
Dakota, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico.
As of the date
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated January 7, 2005, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the
Notice proposed finding that Respondent committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and
proposed assessing a total civil penalty of $70,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also
proposed that Respondent take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
In a letter dated February 4, 2005, Respondent submitted a Response to the Notice (Response).
Respondent contested certain allegations of violation, requested clarification of portions of the
proposed compliance order, provided information concerning the corrective actions it had taken,
and proposed a possible consent order to resolve the Notice. A hearing was held on May 10,
2005, in Atlanta, Georgia, with Renita K. Bivins, Esquire, Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA,
1 Effective February 20, 2005, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) was created
to further the highest degree of safety in pipeline transportation and hazardous materials transportation. See, section
108 of the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-426, 118 Stat.
2423-2429 (November 30, 2004)). See also, 70 Fed. Reg. 8299 (February 18, 2005) redelegating the pipeline safety
functions of the Research and Special Programs Administration to the Administrator, PHMSA.
2 According to documents supplied by Respondent, Columbia Natural Resources, LLC, merged with Columbia
Energy Resources, LLC , to form Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC (Chesapeake), on February 1, 2006.



2
presiding. Respondent was represented by counsel at the hearing. On June 8, 2005, Respondent
provided additional information and requested a waiver of certain regulatory requirements
pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.211(i). PHMSA granted Chesapeake a special permit to address
these issues on July 6, 2007.3
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.614, which states, in
relevant part:
§ 192.614 Damage prevention program.
(a) . . . [Each operator of a buried pipeline must carry out, in
accordance with this section, a written program to prevent damage to that
pipeline from excavation activities . . .
(b) An operator may comply with any of the requirements of
paragraph (c) of this section through participation in a public service
program, such as a one-call system, but such participation does not relieve
the operator of responsibility for compliance with this section . . .
(c) The damage prevention program required by paragraph (a) of
this section must, at a minimum:
(1) Include the identity, on a current basis, of persons who normally
engage in excavation activities in the area in which the pipeline is located.
(2) Provides for notification of the public in the vicinity of the
pipeline and actual notification of the persons identified in paragraph (c)(1)
of this section of the following as often as needed to make them aware of the
damage prevention program:
(i) The program’s existence and purpose; and
(ii) How to learn the location of underground pipelines before
excavation activities are begun.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.614 by failing to carry out a
written program to prevent damage to its pipeline from excavation activities. Under § 192.614,
pipeline operators are required to maintain records identifying, on a current basis, persons who
normally engage in excavation activities in the area in which the operator’s pipelines are located.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that during the inspection, Respondent failed to provide a list of
excavators in the area of its pipeline or other records to demonstrate that its damage prevention
program met all regulatory requirements. Respondent advised OPS that it relied on the Kentucky
One-Call System to identify excavation activities in the area in which its pipelines were located.
Respondent contended that its damage prevention program satisfied the requirements of § 192.614.
3 DMS Docket PHMSA – 2006-26532. The special permit pertains to allegations discussed in Item 3 below.



3
Respondent submitted documentation from Kentucky Underground Protection, Inc. (KY One-
Call) certifying Respondent’s participation in the state’s one-call program, including a list of
excavators and Respondent’s form letter notifying excavators of the existence of the pipeline.
Based on this record, I find that Respondent participates in a one-call system and has a damage
prevention program to communicate with excavators notifying them that Respondent is the
current operator and how to contact the company if the pipeline is damaged at any time during
excavation activities. Therefore, this allegation of violation is withdrawn.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(c), which states:
§ 192.615 Emergency plans.
(a) . . .
(c) Each operator shall establish and maintain liaison with appropriate
fire, police, and other public officials . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(c) by failing to establish and
maintain liaison with appropriate fire, police, and other public officials. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that Columbia was unable to provide records to demonstrate any liaison activities with
public officials in years 2002 and 2003. During the hearing, Respondent submitted evidence of
liaison activities with fire, police and other appropriate officials. However, the evidence related
to activities that occurred after the inspection occurred, not during the relevant 2002-2003 time
period. Respondent failed to provide any evidence that it had established and maintained liaison
with the appropriate officials during such time. Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the
evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(c) by failing to establish and
maintain liaison with appropriate fire, police and other public officials in years 2002 and 2003.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619, which states, in
relevant part:
§ 192.619 Maximum allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic
pipelines.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may
operate a segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a pressure that exceeds the
lowest of the following:
(1) The design pressure of the weakest element in the segment,
determined in accordance with subparts C and D of this part . . .
(2) The pressure obtained by dividing the pressure to which the
segment was tested after construction as follows:
(i) . . .
(ii) For steel pipe operated at 100 p.s.i. (689 kPa) gage or more, the
test pressure is divided by a factor determined in accordance with the
following table:



4
Factors, segment -
Class
location
Installed before
(Nov. 12, 1970)
Installed after
(Nov.11, 1970)
Covered
under
§ 192.14
1 1.1 1.1 1.25
2 1.25 1.25 1.25
3 1.4 1.5 1.5
4 1.4 1.5 1.5
(3) The highest actual operating pressure to which the segment was
subjected during the 5 years preceding July 1, 1970 (or in the case of
offshore gathering lines, July 1, 1976), unless the segment was tested in
accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section after July 1, 1965 (or in the
case of offshore gathering lines, July, 1971), or the segment was uprated in
accordance with subpart K of this part.
(4) The pressure determined by the operator to be the maximum safe
pressure after considering the history of the segment, particularly known
corrosion and the actual operating pressure.
(b) No person may operate a segment to which paragraph (a)(4) of
this section is applicable, unless over-pressure protective devices are installed
on the segment in a manner that will prevent the maximum allowable
operating pressure from being exceeded, in accordance with § 192.195.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619 by operating a steel pipeline
for which it could not substantiate that it had established an appropriate maximum allowable
operating pressure (MAOP). In addition, it alleged that Columbia had operated a pipeline for
which it could not show that over-pressure protection devices had been installed in order to
prevent the MAOP from being exceeded. Respondent did not contest the allegations of
violation. Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent
violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619, as set forth above.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(a) and (b), which
state:
§ 192.705 Transmission lines: Patrolling.
(a) Each operator shall have a patrol program to observe surface
conditions on and adjacent to the transmission line right-of-way for
indications of leaks, construction activity, and other factors affecting safety
and operation.
(b) The frequency of patrols is determined by the size of the line, the
operating pressures, the class location, terrain, weather, and other relevant



5
factors, but intervals between patrols may not be longer than prescribed in
the following table:
Maximum interval between patrols
Class
location
of line
At highway and railroad crossings At all other places
1, 2 7½ months; but at least twice each
calendar year
15 months; but at least
once each calendar year
3 4½ months; but at least four times
each calendar year
7½ months; but at least
twice each calendar
4 4½ months; but at least four times
each calendar year.
4½ months; but at least
four times each calendar
year
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(a-b) by failing to conduct
patrols of its transmission pipeline within the time periods set forth in the table above during
calendar years 2002 and 2003. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Columbia failed to produce
records verifying that the patrols had been conducted within such time periods. Respondent did
not submit any evidence refuting these allegations. Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the
evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(a-b) by failing to conduct patrols
of its transmission pipeline within the applicable time periods set forth in the table above and the
inspector’s Violation Report.
4
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.706, which states, in
relevant part:
§ 192.706 Transmission lines: Leakage surveys.
Leakage surveys of a transmission line must be conducted at intervals
not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. However, in
the case of a transmission line which transports gas in conformity with
§192.625 without an odor or odorant, leakage surveys using leak detector
equipment must be conducted-
(a) In Class 3 locations, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at
least twice each calendar year...
The Notice alleged that Columbia violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.706 by failing to conduct leakage
surveys at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. Specifically,
the Notice alleged that Respondent’s leakage survey records showed that the company had failed
to complete all of the required surveys and that it had exceeded the maximum interval between
4 Violation Report, at Paragraphs 11-12.



6
leakage surveys in 2002 and 2003. At the hearing, Respondent did not have leakage survey
records to show that it had completed all of the required leakage surveys in years 2002 and 2003.
Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.706 by failing to conduct all of required leakage surveys of its transmission pipeline and
that it exceeded the maximum interval between surveys in years 2002 and 2003.
Item 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a), which states:
§ 192.745 Valve maintenance: Transmission lines.
(a) Each transmission line valve that might be required during any
emergency must be inspected and partially operated at intervals not
exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a) by failing to inspect and
partially operate transmission line valves on its pipeline that might be required during an
emergency, at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once each calendar year.
Specifically, it alleged that Columbia’s records failed to show any inspections for such valves in
years 2001, 2002 and 2003. Neither during the inspection nor at the hearing did Respondent
provide a valve list or designate alternative valves for emergency use. Accordingly, upon
consideration of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R § 192.745(a) by
failing to inspect and partially operate transmission line valves at intervals not exceeding 15
months, but at least once each calendar year.
Item 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.225(a-b) and 192.227,
which state, in relevant part:
§ 192.225 Welding procedures.
(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder in accordance
with welding procedures qualified under section 5 of API 1104 . . . to
produce welds meeting the requirements of this subpart. The quality of the
test welds used to qualify welding procedures shall be determined by
destructive testing in accordance with the applicable welding standard(s).
(b) Each welding procedure must be recorded in detail, including the
results of the qualifying tests. This record must be retained and followed
whenever the procedure is used.
§ 192.227 Qualification of welders.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each welder
must be qualified in accordance with section 6 of API 1104 (incorporated by
reference, see § 192.7) or section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7). However, a welder
qualified under an earlier edition than listed in appendix A of this part may
weld but may not requalify under that earlier edition.
(b) A welder may qualify to perform welding on pipe to be operated
at a pressure that produces a hoop stress of less than 20 percent of SMYS by



7
performing an acceptable test weld, for the process to be used, under the test
set forth in section I of Appendix C of this part. Each welder who is to
make a welded service line connection to a main must first perform an
acceptable test weld under section II of Appendix C of this part as a
requirement of the qualifying test.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.225(a-b) by failing to record
certain welding procedures and to retain such records whenever the procedures were used. In
addition, it alleged that Columbia violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.227 by failing to ensure that welders
were qualified in accordance with industry standards. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
Columbia installed approximately 8,500 feet of new pipe in 2003 but failed to produce records of
the welding procedures used or the qualification records of the welders performing the welds.
Respondent failed to produce any records or documentation demonstrating compliance.
Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§§ 192.225(a-b) by failing to record welding procedures and to retain such records whenever the
procedures were used and violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.227 by failing to ensure that welders were
properly qualified.
Item 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.459 and 192.465(a),
which state, in relevant part:
§ 192.459 External corrosion control: Examination of buried pipeline
when exposed.
Whenever an operator has knowledge that any portion of a buried
pipeline is exposed, the exposed portion must be examined for evidence of
external corrosion if the pipe is bare, or if the coating is deteriorated. If
external corrosion requiring remedial action under §§ 192.483 through
192.489 is found, the operator shall investigate circumferentially and
longitudinally beyond the exposed portion (by visual examination, indirect
method, or both) to determine whether additional corrosion requiring remedial
action exists in the vicinity of the exposed portion.
§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.
(a) Each pipeline that is under cathodic protection must be tested at
least once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to
determine whether the cathodic protection meets the requirements of Sec.
192.463. . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.459 by failing to examine buried
pipe that has been exposed in order to look for evidence of external corrosion. Specifically, the
Notice alleged that Columbia had exposed sections of its P2 pipeline in 2003 but could not
provide records to show that the exposed pipe had been examined for evidence of corrosion. The
Notice also alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a) by failing to test each
pipeline that was under cathodic protection at least once each calendar years, but with intervals
not exceeding 15 months, to determine whether the cathodic protection was adequate.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Columbia was unable to provide records showing that



8
annual cathodic protection surveys of approximately 20,300 feet of the KC-20 pipeline and the
Knox Compressor Station piping were completed in 2001, 2002 or 2003. At the time of the
inspection, Respondent advised that the affected section of KC-20 pipeline and the Knox
Compressor Station had been recently added to the local district’s responsibilities and that it had
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.459 and 192.465(a) by failing
not yet completely addressed cathodic protection issues.5 Accordingly, upon consideration of all
to examine exposed pipe and to test pipe for cathode protection, as described above.
Item 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.475(a-b), which states, in
relevant part:
§ 192.475 Internal corrosion control: General.
(a) Corrosive gas may not be transported by pipeline, unless the
corrosive effect of the gas on the pipeline has been investigated and steps
have been taken to minimize internal corrosion.
(b) Whenever any pipe is removed from a pipeline for any reason,
the internal surface must be inspected for evidence of corrosion . . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.475(a-b) by transporting corrosive
gas without investigating the corrosive effect of the gas and taking steps to minimize internal
corrosion. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Columbia transported untreated “wet” gas from
production wells but was unable to provide records showing that it had investigated the corrosive
effect of the gas or had taken steps to minimize internal corrosion. It further alleged that the
company had removed sections of the P2 pipeline in 2003 but that it was unable to provide
records showing that it had examined the internal surface of such pipe for evidence of internal
corrosion. Respondent failed to provide any evidence rebutting these allegations. Accordingly,
upon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.475(a-
b) by transporting corrosive gas without investigating the corrosive effect of the gas and by
removing sections of the P2 pipeline without showing that it had examined the internal surface of
the pipe for internal corrosion.
Item 10: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.5, which states, in
relevant part:
§ 192.5 Class locations.
(a) This section classifies pipeline locations for purposes of this
part. The following criteria apply to classifications under this section.
(1) A “class location unit” is an onshore area that extends 220
yards (200 meters) on either side of the centerline of any continuous 1-
mile (1.6 kilometers) length of pipeline.
(2) Each separate dwelling unit in a multiple dwelling unit
building is counted as a separate building intended for human occupancy.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, pipeline
locations are classified as follows:
(1) A Class 1 location . . .
5 Violation Report, at Paragraph 14b.



9
(2) A Class 2 location . . .
(3) A Class 3 location . . .
(4) A Class 4 location . . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.5 by failing to determine class
locations for its pipeline system. Specifically, it alleged that Columbia was unable to produce
records showing the class locations of its gathering and pipeline facilities. Respondent submitted
evidence showing that it had undertaken class location studies subsequent to the inspection.
Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.5 by failing to determine class locations for its pipeline system.
Item 11: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §192.243, which states, in
relevant part:
§ 192.243 Nondestructive testing.
(a) Nondestructive testing of welds must be performed by any
process, other than trepanning, that will clearly indicate defects that may
affect the integrity of the weld.
(b) Nondestructive testing of welds must be performed:
(1) In accordance with written procedures; and
(2) By persons who have been trained and qualified in the established
procedures and with the equipment employed in testing.
(c) . . .
(f) When nondestructive testing is required under § 192.241(b), each
operator must retain, for the life of the pipeline, a record showing by milepost,
engineering station, or by geographic feature, the number of girth welds made,
the number nondestructively tested, the number rejected, and the disposition
of the rejects.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.243 by failing to perform
nondestructive testing (NDT) of welds by persons who were properly qualified. Specifically, it
alleged that Columbia was unable to provide qualification records for the NDT technicians who
tested the welds on approximately 8,500 feet of new pipeline installed in 2003. The Notice also
alleged that the company failed to retain, for the life of the pipeline, NDT records showing by
milepost, engineering station, or other geographic feature, the number of girth welds made, the
number nondestructively tested, the number rejected, and the disposition of the rejects.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that for the new pipe installed in 2003, Columbia’s records
lacked specificity as to the milepost, engineering station, geographic feature, the number of girth
welds made, the number nondestructively tested, the number rejected and the disposition of the
rejects.
Respondent failed to produce any records or documentation demonstrating compliance.
Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.243 by failing to perform NDT of welds by persons who were properly qualified and by
failing to maintain adequate NDT records.



10
Item 12: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.731(a), which states:
§ 192.731 Compressor stations: Inspection and testing of relief devices.
(a) Except for rupture discs, each pressure relieving device in a
compressor station must be inspected and tested in accordance with
§§ 192.739 and 192.743, and must be operated periodically to determine
that it opens at the correct set pressure.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.731(a) by failing to inspect and test
each pressure relieving device in a compressor station in accordance with §§ 192.739 and
192.743. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Columbia was unable to provide records showing
that the relief devices at the company’s Knox Compressor Station had been inspected and tested
in years 2001, 2002, and 2003. Respondent failed to submit any evidence rebutting the
allegations in the Notice. Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that
Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.731(a) by failing to inspect and test each pressure relieving
device in a compressor station in accordance with §§ 192.739 and 192.743.
Item 13: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.731(c), which states:
§ 192.731 Compressor stations: Inspection and testing of relief devices.
(a) . . .
(c) Each remote control shutdown device must be inspected and
tested at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar
year, to determine that it functions properly.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.731(c) by failing to inspect and
test, at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once each calendar year, each remote
control shutdown device to determine that it functioned properly. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that Columbia was unable to provide records showing that each emergency shutdown
system (ESD) at the Knox Compressor Station had been inspected and tested in 2002. At the
hearing, Respondent failed to produce any records or documentation demonstrating compliance.
Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.731(c) by failing to inspect and test ESD devices at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but
at least once each calendar year.
Item 14: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.736, which states, in
relevant part:
§ 192.736 Compressor stations: Gas detection.
(a) Not later than September 16, 1996, each compressor building in a
compressor station must have a fixed gas detection and alarm system . . .
(c) Each gas detection and alarm system required by this section
must be maintained to function properly. The maintenance must include
performance tests.



11
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.736 by failing to maintain each gas
detection and alarm system in a compressor building so that they functioned properly, including
through performance testing. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Columbia was unable to
provide records showing that the gas detection and alarm system at the Knox Compressor Station
had been performance tested in 2002. At the hearing, Respondent failed to produce any records
or documentation demonstrating compliance. Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the
evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.736 by failing to maintain each gas
detection and alarm system in a compressor building so that it functioned properly, including
through performance testing.
Item 15: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(a), which states:
§ 192.709 Transmission lines: Record keeping.
Each operator shall maintain the following records for transmission
lines for the periods specified:
(a) The date, location, and description of each repair made to pipe
(including pipe-to-pipe connections) must be retained for as long as the pipe
remains in service.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(a) by failing to maintain
records showing the date, location, and description of each repair made to pipe and to retain such
records for as long as the pipe remains in service. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Columbia
was unable to provide records showing what repairs had been made on its gathering and
transmission pipeline sections in years 2001, 2002 and 2003. Respondent failed to submit any
evidence rebutting the allegations in the Notice. Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the
evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(a) by failing to maintain records
showing the date, location, and description of each repair made to its gathering and transmission
pipeline sections in years 2001, 2002 and 2003.
Item 16: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a), which states:
§ 192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.
(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline
that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as
follows:
If the pipeline
is located:
Then the frequency of inspection is:
Onshore At least once every 3 calendar
years, but with intervals not
exceeding 39 months
Offshore At least once each calendar year,
but with intervals not exceeding 15
months . . . .



12
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a) by failing to inspect, at least
once every three years but with intervals not exceeding 39 months, each of its onshore pipelines
or portions of its pipelines exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Columbia was unable to provide records showing that it had
conducted such inspections in years 2001, 2002, 2003 or 2004. Respondent failed to submit any
evidence rebutting the allegations in the Notice. Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the
evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a), as Respondent failed to
inspect, at least once every three years but with intervals not exceeding 39 months, each of its
onshore pipelines or portions of its pipelines exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of
atmospheric corrosion.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. §60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 per
violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of
violations.
49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of a civil
penalty, I consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,
including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history
of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s ability to pay the penalty and any effect that
the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent
in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the
economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent
damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil
penalty of $70,000 for violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192.
Item 1 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.614, for
Respondent’s failure to identify a current list of persons who normally engage in excavation
activities in the areas in which the company’s pipelines are located. Based on a demonstration of
regulatory compliance during the hearing, this allegation of violation is withdrawn.
Accordingly, the related proposed civil penalty is withdrawn.
Item 2 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(c),
for Respondent’s failure to establish and maintain liaison with appropriate fire, police, and other
public officials. An objective of this regulation is to assure that responders who could be
involved in an emergency are prepared to recognize and deal with such situation in an
expeditious and safe manner. When an operator fails to establish and maintain liaison, the
proper procedures and techniques to follow may not be clear to those responsible for responding
to a natural gas pipeline emergency. Respondent has not shown any circumstance that would
have prevented or justified its failure to maintain records of its liaison activities with public



13
officials during the years 2002 and 2003. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and
considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000.
Item 3 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.619, for
Respondent’s operations of a steel pipeline for which it could not substantiate that it had
established an appropriate MAOP. The penalty was also proposed for Respondent’s failure to
provide records to demonstrate that over-pressure protection devices had been installed on each
pipe segment to prevent exceeding the MAOP. Respondent did not contest the civil penalty but
sought a Waiver of Compliance for Item 3.
Columbia submitted a Petition for Waiver (now referred to as a special permit) on June 8, 2005,
seeking relief from the requirements of § 192.619 and asserting that it did not have all the data
and records needed to establish MAOP using the methods prescribed in the regulations.
PHMSA issued Columbia’s successor, Chesapeake, a special permit on July 6, 2007. The permit
allows Chesapeake to use alternate methods to establish MAOPs for its regulated pipeline
segments.
With the special permit, Chesapeake will achieve compliance with respect to this violation.
Nevertheless, the company’s post-inspection corrective action does not justify reducing the civil
penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I
assess Respondent a civil penalty of $10,000.
Item 4 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(a-
b), for failing to conduct patrols of its transmission pipeline within the required time periods
during years 2002 and 2003 and by exceeding the maximum intervals between patrols in those
years. Respondent did not contest the civil penalty amount but provided a spreadsheet to
demonstrate how it will keep patrol records in the future. Pipelines must be patrolled to observe
surface conditions for indications of leaks, construction activity, and other factors affecting
safety and operation and for ensuring against pipeline encroachments. Maintaining a system of
inspection ensures reasonable promptness in the detection of all surface conditions on and
adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way that could affect the safe operation of the pipeline.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000.
Item 5 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.706, for
Respondent’s failure to conduct leakage surveys at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least
once each calendar year. Verification that leak surveys are being properly conducted is an
essential requirement to the safe operation of a pipeline. Without performing leakage surveys at
the required intervals, a leak may not be detected and present a potentially hazardous situation.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000.
Item 6 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a),
for Respondent’s failure to inspect and partially operate transmission line valves on its pipeline
that might be required during an emergency, at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least



14
once each calendar year. Respondent also failed to provide a valve list or designate alternative
valves for emergency use. These valves can be critical during an emergency. Inoperative or
malfunctioning valves may delay appropriate emergency response, thereby exposing the public
and the environment to greater risks of injury and damage. Respondent did not contest the civil
penalty but provided a spreadsheet to demonstrate how it will keep valve maintenance records in
the future. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I
assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000.
Item 8 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.459, for
Respondent’s failure to examine buried pipe that had been exposed in order to look for evidence
of external corrosion, and for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a), for Respondent’s failure to test
each pipeline that was under cathodic protection at least once each calendar years, but with
intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine whether the cathodic protection was adequate.
Proper documentation includes test protocols that have been developed to measure corrosive
constituents and documented analysis of the tests results. Conducting timely evaluations of
exposed areas of buried pipeline for evidence of corrosion is a key part of pipeline surveillance
because washouts and other circumstances that expose buried pipelines may involve damage to
or deterioration of the coating. The risk of corrosion on the pipeline significantly increases
without proper cathodic protection systems. Preventive maintenance is critical to the safety of the
public, environment and property. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the
assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000.
Item 10 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.5, for
Respondent’s failure to determine
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 50973