{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420031004","title":"TEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2003-04-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.225(b), 192.459, 192.465(d), 192.605(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420031004.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420031004.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420031004","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420031004","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.225(b),  192.459,  192.465(d),  192.605(a). The case was opened on 2003-04-07 and is reported as closed as of 2005-09-09. Proposed civil penalty: $33,000. Assessed civil penalty: $27,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420031004_Final Order _08182005.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420031004/420031004_Final%20Order%20_08182005.pdf\n\nWILLIAMS GAS PIPELINE (420031004).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420031004/WILLIAMS%20GAS%20PIPELINE%20(420031004).pdf\n\n420031004_Final Order _08182005.pdf\n\n@\nu.s. Deporiment\nof Tronsportotion\nPlpellne ond\nHozordous tltofiedols Sofsty\nAdmlnbtroflon\n400 Seventh Slfeet, S.w.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nAUo 1 8 2.005\nMr. RandyBamard\nVice President, Operations\nWilliams Gas Pipeline\n2800 Post Oak Boulevard\nHouston, TX 77056\nRe: CPFNo.4-2003-1004\nDear Mr. Barnard:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the\nabove-referenced case. It makes findings ofviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $27,000. The\npenalty palmrent terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically\nupon payrnent. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service ofthat document under 49 C.F.R.\ns 190.5.\nSincerely,\nNtfl\n)c-.- //4--\njames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Joseph P. Robertson, P.E.\nManager, PiPeline SafetY\nWilliams Gas PiPeline\nRod Seeley, Region Director\nSouthwest Region, OPS\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SA.F'ETY ADMIMSTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\nIn the Matter of\nWilliams Gas Pipeline,\nRespondent.\nCPF No. 4-2003-1004\nFINALORDER\nBetween July 16, 2001 and June 28, 2002, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. $ 60117, a representative of the\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (OPS) conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's\nfacilities and records pertaining to its Texas Gas onshore and offshore pipeline systems consisting\nof Morgan City, Youngsville, Woodlawn, Offshore Gas\" Eunice, Pineville, Columbia, Bastrop-\nGuthrie, and Sharon districts in Louisiana, and its Central natural gas pipeline systems consisting\nof lndependence-Joplin, Alva, Edmond, and Blackwell districts in Oklahoma and Texas. As a result\nof the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated April\n7,2003, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with\n49 C.F.R. g 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had committed yiolations of\n49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $33,000 for the alleged violations.\nBy letter dated April 28, 2003, Respondent responded to the Notice by requesting a hearing.\nRespondent submitted written information and explanations on September 10, 2003, and the hearing\nwas held via teleconference on September 16,2003. Afterthe hearing, Respondent provided further\ninformation for the record on October 8, 2003,\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem 2 in the Notice alleged that Respondentviolated 49 C.F.R. $ 192.459 by fallingto demonstrate\nthat areas of exposed pipe at four separate locations in the Central Blackwell district were timely\nexamined for evidence of external corrosion. During the hearing, Respondent acknowledged that\nit did not have records demonstrating that the required inspections were adequately conducted at\nthese locations. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated S 192.459 by failing to demonstrate\nthat external corrosion inspections were conducted at the specified locations as more fully described\nirr ihe Notice.\nItem 3 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR $ 192.465(d) by failing to promptly\ncorrect low pipe-to-soil (PTS) potentials identified by annual monitoring at 21 locations in the\n\n\n\nz\nSharon and Bastrop-Guthrie districts. At the hearing, Respondent acknowledged that the majority\nof the locations were below the -850 mV threshold for two consecutive years, but explained that it\ncould provide documentation demonstrating that the PTS deficiencies were coffected within one\ninspection cycle with respect to 6 of the 21 locations. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated\n$ 192.465(d) by failing to promptly conect cathodic protection deficiencies at 15 of the 21 locations\nspecified in the Notice.\nItem4oftheNoticeallegedthatRespondentcommittedviolationsof49CFR$ 192.605(a)byfalling\nto follow certain of its operations and maintenance (O&M) procedures. Specifically, Item 4A\nalleged that Respondent failed to make all persons who are required to be notified about its darnage\nprevention (DP) program aware of it in accordance with its O&M procedures. In its response,\nRespondent provided information conceming the attendance of officials from 3 counties at the April\n16,2002 Govemment LiaisonEmergencyResponseprogram inBartlesville, Oklahoma, information\nconceming the attendance of officials from 5 counties at the May 2, 2002 program in Vineta,\nOklahoma, and information conceming the receipt of follow-up materials by the attendees.\nRespondent, however, failed to demonstrate that it made public officials in the other 22 counties in\nwhich it operates aware of its DP program, or made potentially affected excavators awaf,e of its DP\nprogram. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated $ 192.605(a) by failing to follow its O&M\nprocedures for notification of all persons required to be notified about its DP program.\nItem 48 of the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to access and utilize the \"Comments\" section\nof its program for receiving and recording one-call information in accordance with its O&M\nprocedures. In its response and at thehearing, Respondent acknowledged that it failed to utilize the\nComments section. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated $ 192.605(a) by failing to follow\nits O&M procedures for receiving and recording one-call data'\nItem 4C of the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to free-up two valves found to be hard to\noperate in 1999-2000 in accordance with its O&M procedures, and failed to adequately document\nwhether all valves in the Youngsville district were partially operated during the 2000 and 2001\ninspection cycles. In its response and at the hearing, Respondent argued that it considered many of\nthe valves in its system unnecessary for the operation ofits pipeline, but acknowledged that it could\nnot demonstrate that the two specified valves were actually ffeed or that the referenced valve\ninspectionswereadequatelydocumented. Accordingly, IfindthatRespondentviolated$ 192.605(a)\nby failing to follow its O&M procedures for freeing-up hard to operate valves and failed to\nadequately document the specified valve inspections.\nThese hndings ofviolation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nA.SSESSMENT OF PENA.I-TY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. i 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penaity not to exceed $100,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any reiated series of\nviolations.\n\n\n\n3\n49 U.S.C. g 60122 and 49 C.F.R. $ 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, degree\nof Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to pay the\npenalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on Respondent's\nability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.\nWith respect to Item 2, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $2,000 for Respondent's failure to\ndemonstrate that areas of exposed pipe at the specified locations in the Central Blackwell district\nwere timely examined for evidence of external corrosion. Section 192.459 requires pipeline\noperators to evaluate portions ofburied pipeline for evidence ofcoating deterioration and external\ncorrosion any time they are discovered to be exposed. Ir its Response and at the hearing,\nRespondent acknowledged the failure to evaluate the specified exposed areas, but explained that\nthese inspections were eventually conducted and that it had taken measures to improve its practices\nin this regard.\nConducting timely evaluations of exposed areas of buried pipeline for evidence of coating\ndeterioration or external corrosion is a key part of pipeline surveillance because washouts and other\ncircumstances that expose buried pipeline can involve damage or deterioration of the coating. These\nevaluations also provide the operatorwith important information conceming the effectiveness of its\ncorrosion control activities. While Respondent eventually conducted the required inspections, in all\nfour cases they were performed over two years after the time of discovery. Respondent has not\nsubrnitted information that would warrant areduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the\nNotice for this violation. Accordingly, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $2,000 for the above-\ndescribed violation of 49 C.F.R. 5 192.459.\nWith respect to Itern 3, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $21,000 for Respondent's failure to\npromptly correct low pipe-to-soil (PTS) potentials identified by annual monitoring at 2l locations\nin the Sharon and Bastrop-Guthrie districts. Whenever PTS readings are below the minimum\nthreshold, pipeline operators are obligated to take prompt remedial action to correct the deficiencies\nin order to ensure corosion affecting the integrity ofthe pipe does not develop.\nIn connection with the hearing, Respondent provided documentation demonstrating that the PTS\ndeficiencies were corrected within one inspection cycle with respect to 6 of the 21 locations.\nTherefore, I find that a proportional reduction in the civil penalty amount is warranted. Accordingly,\nI assess Respondent a civil penalty of $15,000 for the above-described violation of 49 C.F.R.\n$ 1e2.465(d).\nWith respect to Item 4A, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $2,500 for Respondent's failure to\nmake all persons who are required to be notified about its DP program awire of it in accordance with\nits O&ll proced,;res. In oonnecticn.;rith the hearing, F,espondent provided information conceming\nthe attendance of officials from 3 counties at the April 16,2002 Government Liaison Emergency\nResponse program in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, information conceming the attendance of of{icials\nfrom 5 counties at the May 2,2002 program in Vineta, Oklahoma, and information concerning the\nreceipt of follow-up materials by the attendees.\n\n\n\n4\nA pipeline operator's obligation to notify all appropriate public officials and excavators about its\nDP program is a key part of effectively implementing the program. While Respondent provided\ninformation concerning a subset of the public officials it was required to notify, it did not\ndemonstrate that all appropriate officials were notified or that persons who engage in excavation\nactivities in the areas in which the pipeline is located were notified. Respondent has not submitted\ninformation that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for\nthis violation. Accordingly, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $2,500 for the above described\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. $ 192.605(a).\nWith respect to Item 48, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $2,500 for Respondent's failure to\naccess and utilize the \"Comments\" section of its program for receiving and recording one-call\ninformation in accordance with its O&M procedures. In its response and at the hearing, Respondent\nacknowledged that it failed to utilize the Comments section during the relevant period but explained\nthat similar information had been recorded in other daily logs and that it had since discontinued the\nuse ofthat particularprogram and changed its procedures accordingly.\nA pipeline operator's obligation to maintain adequate records conceming its receipt of and response\nto one-call notifications is key to evaluating the effectiveness ofthe operator's actions in response\nto receiving dig tickets. In order to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of dig notification response\nactivities, operatorc must ensure that established written procedures, including procedures for\nmaintaining records, are consistently applied and followed by personnel. Respondent has not\nsubmitted information that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the\nNotice for this violation. Accordingly, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $2,500 for the above-\ndescribed violation of 49 C.F.R. $ 192.605(a).\nWith respect to Item 4C, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for Respondent's failure to\nfree-up two valves found to be hard to operate in 1999-2000 in accordance with its O&M\nprocedures, and its failure to adequately document whether all valves in the Youngsville districtwere\npartially operated during the 2000 and 2001 inspection cycles. In its response and at the hearing,\nRespondent argued that it considered many ofthe valves in its system unrecessary for the operation\nof iti pipeline. Respondent also noted that while correcting hard to operate valves was required\nunder its procedures, a valve being hard to operate was not necessarily an automatic code violation.\nInspection and maintenance of line valves is keyto ensuring the proper operation ofpipeline systems\nand ensuring that personnel are able to take appropriate actions in response to abnormal operating\nconditions. While Respondent may not currently consider all of the valves to be \"necessary\" to\noperate its pipeline, the fact remains that the design and construction of the pipeline included these\nvalves and Respondent has elected not to remove them. Moreover, Respondent did not contend that\nit rvnrrld he rn accenfahle nracfice for ils nersonnel to deviate from the established procedures and\nv v 4 r E v v v t / l s\nintervals for valve inspection and maintenance based on ad hoc determinations about whether the\nuse of any given valve might be necessary at some point in the future. Respondent is well aware that\nsuch a practice could have adverse implications for safety. Respondent has not submitted\n\n\n\n5\ninformation that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for\nthis violation. Accordingly, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of$5,000 for the above-described\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. $ 192.605(a).\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent\na total civil penalty of$27,000.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R.\n$ 89.21(bX3)) require this payrnent be made by wire transfer, through the Federal Reserve\nCommunications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are\ncontained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial\nOperations Division (ANIZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical\nCenter, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma CitX OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $27,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current arurual rate in\naccordancewith3l U.S.C. 53717,31C.F.R. $ 901.9and49C.F.R. $ 89.23. Pursuanttothosesame\nauthorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per anmrm will be charged if payment is not\nmade within I l0 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral\nof the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United States District Court.\nWARNING ITEM\nTheNotice did not propose a civil penaltyor corrective action for Item I in the Notice, Respondent's\nalleged failure to follow its qualified welding procedures during welder re-qualification tests in\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. $ I92.225(b). Therefore, this is considered to be a warning item.\nRespondent is warned that if it does not take appropriate action to correct this item, enforcement\naction will be taken if a subsequent inspection reveals a violation.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. $ 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a petition for reconsideration of this\nFinal Order. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be received within 20 days of\nRespondent'sreceiptofthisFinalOrderandmustcontainabriefstatementoftheissue(s). Thefiling\nof a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However if Respondent\nsubmits payrnent for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and\nthe right to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Finai Order are\neffective on receipt.\nAUG 1 8 2005\nDate Issued\nfor Pipeline Safety\n* \"","truncated":false,"body_characters":16933}