TEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

case documentOfficial PDFWILLIAMS GAS PIPELINE (420031004).pdf#

420031004_Final Order _08182005.pdf, page 1Official PDF@ u.s. Deporiment of Tronsportotion Plpellne ond Hozordous tltofiedols Sofsty Admlnbtroflon 400 Seventh Slfeet, S.w. Washington, D.C. 20590 AUo 1 8 2.005 Mr. RandyBamard Vice President, Operations Williams Gas Pipeline 2800 Post Oak Boulevard Houston, TX 77056 Re: CPFNo.4-2003-1004 Dear Mr. Barnard: Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the above-referenced case. It makes findings ofviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $27,000. The penalty palmrent terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon payrnent. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service ofthat document under 49 C.F.R. s 190.5. Sincerely, Ntfl )c-.- //4-- james Reynolds Pipeline Compliance Registry Office of Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Joseph P. Robertson, P.E. Manager, PiPeline SafetY Williams Gas PiPeline Rod Seeley, Region Director Southwest Region, OPS#

420031004_Final Order _08182005.pdf, page 2DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SA.F'ETY ADMIMSTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, DC 20590 In the Matter of Williams Gas Pipeline, Respondent. CPF No. 4-2003-1004 FINALORDER Between July 16, 2001 and June 28, 2002, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. $ 60117, a representative of the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's facilities and records pertaining to its Texas Gas onshore and offshore pipeline systems consisting of Morgan City, Youngsville, Woodlawn, Offshore Gas" Eunice, Pineville, Columbia, Bastrop- Guthrie, and Sharon districts in Louisiana, and its Central natural gas pipeline systems consisting of lndependence-Joplin, Alva, Edmond, and Blackwell districts in Oklahoma and Texas. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated April 7,2003, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. g 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had committed yiolations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $33,000 for the alleged violations. By letter dated April 28, 2003, Respondent responded to the Notice by requesting a hearing. Respondent submitted written information and explanations on September 10, 2003, and the hearing was held via teleconference on September 16,2003. Afterthe hearing, Respondent provided further information for the record on October 8, 2003, FINDINGS OF VIOLATION Item 2 in the Notice alleged that Respondentviolated 49 C.F.R. $ 192.459 by fallingto demonstrate that areas of exposed pipe at four separate locations in the Central Blackwell district were timely examined for evidence of external corrosion. During the hearing, Respondent acknowledged that it did not have records demonstrating that the required inspections were adequately conducted at these locations. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated S 192.459 by failing to demonstrate that external corrosion inspections were conducted at the specified locations as more fully described irr ihe Notice. Item 3 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR $ 192.465(d) by failing to promptly correct low pipe-to-soil (PTS) potentials identified by annual monitoring at 21 locations in the#

420031004_Final Order _08182005.pdf, page 3z Sharon and Bastrop-Guthrie districts. At the hearing, Respondent acknowledged that the majority of the locations were below the -850 mV threshold for two consecutive years, but explained that it could provide documentation demonstrating that the PTS deficiencies were coffected within one inspection cycle with respect to 6 of the 21 locations. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated $ 192.465(d) by failing to promptly conect cathodic protection deficiencies at 15 of the 21 locations specified in the Notice. Item4oftheNoticeallegedthatRespondentcommittedviolationsof49CFR$ 192.605(a)byfalling to follow certain of its operations and maintenance (O&M) procedures. Specifically, Item 4A alleged that Respondent failed to make all persons who are required to be notified about its darnage prevention (DP) program aware of it in accordance with its O&M procedures. In its response, Respondent provided information conceming the attendance of officials from 3 counties at the April 16,2002 Govemment LiaisonEmergencyResponseprogram inBartlesville, Oklahoma, information conceming the attendance of officials from 5 counties at the May 2, 2002 program in Vineta, Oklahoma, and information conceming the receipt of follow-up materials by the attendees. Respondent, however, failed to demonstrate that it made public officials in the other 22 counties in which it operates aware of its DP program, or made potentially affected excavators awaf,e of its DP program. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated $ 192.605(a) by failing to follow its O&M procedures for notification of all persons required to be notified about its DP program. Item 48 of the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to access and utilize the "Comments" section of its program for receiving and recording one-call information in accordance with its O&M procedures. In its response and at thehearing, Respondent acknowledged that it failed to utilize the Comments section. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated $ 192.605(a) by failing to follow its O&M procedures for receiving and recording one-call data' Item 4C of the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to free-up two valves found to be hard to operate in 1999-2000 in accordance with its O&M procedures, and failed to adequately document whether all valves in the Youngsville district were partially operated during the 2000 and 2001 inspection cycles. In its response and at the hearing, Respondent argued that it considered many of the valves in its system unnecessary for the operation ofits pipeline, but acknowledged that it could not demonstrate that the two specified valves were actually ffeed or that the referenced valve inspectionswereadequatelydocumented. Accordingly, IfindthatRespondentviolated$ 192.605(a) by failing to follow its O&M procedures for freeing-up hard to operate valves and failed to adequately document the specified valve inspections. These hndings ofviolation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent. A.SSESSMENT OF PENA.I-TY Under 49 U.S.C. i 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penaity not to exceed $100,000 per violation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any reiated series of violations.#

420031004_Final Order _08182005.pdf, page 43 49 U.S.C. g 60122 and 49 C.F.R. $ 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil penalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, degree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on Respondent's ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require. With respect to Item 2, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $2,000 for Respondent's failure to demonstrate that areas of exposed pipe at the specified locations in the Central Blackwell district were timely examined for evidence of external corrosion. Section 192.459 requires pipeline operators to evaluate portions ofburied pipeline for evidence ofcoating deterioration and external corrosion any time they are discovered to be exposed. Ir its Response and at the hearing, Respondent acknowledged the failure to evaluate the specified exposed areas, but explained that these inspections were eventually conducted and that it had taken measures to improve its practices in this regard. Conducting timely evaluations of exposed areas of buried pipeline for evidence of coating deterioration or external corrosion is a key part of pipeline surveillance because washouts and other circumstances that expose buried pipeline can involve damage or deterioration of the coating. These evaluations also provide the operatorwith important information conceming the effectiveness of its corrosion control activities. While Respondent eventually conducted the required inspections, in all four cases they were performed over two years after the time of discovery. Respondent has not subrnitted information that would warrant areduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $2,000 for the above- described violation of 49 C.F.R. 5 192.459. With respect to Itern 3, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $21,000 for Respondent's failure to promptly correct low pipe-to-soil (PTS) potentials identified by annual monitoring at 2l locations in the Sharon and Bastrop-Guthrie districts. Whenever PTS readings are below the minimum threshold, pipeline operators are obligated to take prompt remedial action to correct the deficiencies in order to ensure corosion affecting the integrity ofthe pipe does not develop. In connection with the hearing, Respondent provided documentation demonstrating that the PTS deficiencies were corrected within one inspection cycle with respect to 6 of the 21 locations. Therefore, I find that a proportional reduction in the civil penalty amount is warranted. Accordingly, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $15,000 for the above-described violation of 49 C.F.R. $ 1e2.465(d). With respect to Item 4A, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $2,500 for Respondent's failure to make all persons who are required to be notified about its DP program awire of it in accordance with its O&ll proced,;res. In oonnecticn.;rith the hearing, F,espondent provided information conceming the attendance of officials from 3 counties at the April 16,2002 Government Liaison Emergency Response program in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, information conceming the attendance of of{icials from 5 counties at the May 2,2002 program in Vineta, Oklahoma, and information concerning the receipt of follow-up materials by the attendees.#

420031004_Final Order _08182005.pdf, page 54 A pipeline operator's obligation to notify all appropriate public officials and excavators about its DP program is a key part of effectively implementing the program. While Respondent provided information concerning a subset of the public officials it was required to notify, it did not demonstrate that all appropriate officials were notified or that persons who engage in excavation activities in the areas in which the pipeline is located were notified. Respondent has not submitted information that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $2,500 for the above described violation of 49 C.F.R. $ 192.605(a). With respect to Item 48, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $2,500 for Respondent's failure to access and utilize the "Comments" section of its program for receiving and recording one-call information in accordance with its O&M procedures. In its response and at the hearing, Respondent acknowledged that it failed to utilize the Comments section during the relevant period but explained that similar information had been recorded in other daily logs and that it had since discontinued the use ofthat particularprogram and changed its procedures accordingly. A pipeline operator's obligation to maintain adequate records conceming its receipt of and response to one-call notifications is key to evaluating the effectiveness ofthe operator's actions in response to receiving dig tickets. In order to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of dig notification response activities, operatorc must ensure that established written procedures, including procedures for maintaining records, are consistently applied and followed by personnel. Respondent has not submitted information that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $2,500 for the above- described violation of 49 C.F.R. $ 192.605(a). With respect to Item 4C, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for Respondent's failure to free-up two valves found to be hard to operate in 1999-2000 in accordance with its O&M procedures, and its failure to adequately document whether all valves in the Youngsville districtwere partially operated during the 2000 and 2001 inspection cycles. In its response and at the hearing, Respondent argued that it considered many ofthe valves in its system unrecessary for the operation of iti pipeline. Respondent also noted that while correcting hard to operate valves was required under its procedures, a valve being hard to operate was not necessarily an automatic code violation. Inspection and maintenance of line valves is keyto ensuring the proper operation ofpipeline systems and ensuring that personnel are able to take appropriate actions in response to abnormal operating conditions. While Respondent may not currently consider all of the valves to be "necessary" to operate its pipeline, the fact remains that the design and construction of the pipeline included these valves and Respondent has elected not to remove them. Moreover, Respondent did not contend that it rvnrrld he rn accenfahle nracfice for ils nersonnel to deviate from the established procedures and v v 4 r E v v v t / l s intervals for valve inspection and maintenance based on ad hoc determinations about whether the use of any given valve might be necessary at some point in the future. Respondent is well aware that such a practice could have adverse implications for safety. Respondent has not submitted#

420031004_Final Order _08182005.pdf, page 65 information that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of$5,000 for the above-described violation of 49 C.F.R. $ 192.605(a). Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of$27,000. Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R. $ 89.21(bX3)) require this payrnent be made by wire transfer, through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (ANIZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma CitX OK 73125; (405) 954-8893. Failure to pay the $27,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current arurual rate in accordancewith3l U.S.C. 53717,31C.F.R. $ 901.9and49C.F.R. $ 89.23. Pursuanttothosesame authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per anmrm will be charged if payment is not made within I l0 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United States District Court. WARNING ITEM TheNotice did not propose a civil penaltyor corrective action for Item I in the Notice, Respondent's alleged failure to follow its qualified welding procedures during welder re-qualification tests in accordance with 49 C.F.R. $ I92.225(b). Therefore, this is considered to be a warning item. Respondent is warned that if it does not take appropriate action to correct this item, enforcement action will be taken if a subsequent inspection reveals a violation. Under 49 C.F.R. $ 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a petition for reconsideration of this Final Order. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent'sreceiptofthisFinalOrderandmustcontainabriefstatementoftheissue(s). Thefiling of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However if Respondent submits payrnent for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Finai Order are effective on receipt. AUG 1 8 2005 Date Issued for Pipeline Safety * "#