{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520091003","title":"TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2009-04-20","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.323(d), 192.463, 192.463(a), 192.605(a), 192.706(a), 192.905(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520091003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520091003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520091003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520091003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.323(d),  192.463,  192.463(a),  192.605(a),  192.706(a),  192.905(a). The case was opened on 2009-04-20 and is reported as closed as of 2010-11-17. Proposed civil penalty: $192,600. Assessed civil penalty: $192,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520091003_closure letter_11172010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520091003/520091003_closure%20letter_11172010.pdf\n\n520091003_closure letter_11172010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520091003/520091003_closure%20letter_11172010_text.pdf\n\n520091003_Final Order_10142010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520091003/520091003_Final%20Order_10142010.pdf\n\n520091003_Final Order_10142010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520091003/520091003_Final%20Order_10142010_text.pdf\n\n520091003_NOPV PCP PCO_04202009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520091003/520091003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04202009.pdf\n\n520091003_NOPV PCP PCO_04202009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520091003/520091003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04202009_text.pdf\n\n520091003_operator request for hearing and request for time extension_05192009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520091003/520091003_operator%20request%20for%20hearing%20and%20request%20for%20time%20extension_05192009.pdf\n\n520091003_closure letter_11172010_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nNovember 17, 2010\nMr. Phillip D. Wright\nPresident\nWilliams Gas Pipeline Company, LLC\n2800 Post Oak Boulevard\nHouston, TX 77056\nCPF 5-2009-1003\nDear Mr. Wright:\nOn October 14, 2010, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Williams Gas Pipeline Company, LLC a Final Order in the above-referenced case.\nThis Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review\nof the documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty paid on\nOctober 20, 2010, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 R. Reineke\n\n520091003_Final Order_10142010_text.pdf\n\nOCT 14 2010\nMr. Phillip D. Wright\nPresident\nWilliams Gas Pipeline Company, LLC\n2800 Post Oak Boulevard\nHouston, TX 77056\nRe: CPF No. 5-2009-1003\nDear Mr. Wright:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $192,600. It further finds that Williams Gas Pipeline\nCompany, LLC, has completed certain actions specified in the Notice to comply with the\npipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When\nthe civil penalty has been paid and the remaining terms of the compliance order completed, as\ndetermined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of\nthe Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA\nMs. Marie Sotak, Manager, Pipeline Safety, Williams Gas Pipeline Company, LLC\n2800 Post Oak Boulevard, Houston, TX 77056\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7009 1410 0000 2472 2841]\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 )\nWilliams Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, ) CPF No. 5-2009-1003\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom June through August 2008, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Williams Gas\nPipeline Company, LLC (Williams or Respondent), in Georgia, Idaho, New Jersey, Texas, Utah,\nand Washington. Respondent, a subsidiary of The Williams Companies, Inc., owns and operates\nover 14,000 miles of gas transmission and gathering lines across the United States, including the\nNorthwest Pipeline, the Transcontinental (Transco) Pipeline, and the Gulfstream Pipeline.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter\ndated April 20, 2009, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Williams had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed\nassessing a civil penalty of $192,600 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed\nordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nWilliams responded to the Notice by letter dated May 19, 2009 (Response). Williams contested\nseveral of the allegations and contended that certain penalties should be eliminated. Respondent\nalso requested a hearing. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, a hearing was held on\nOctober 6, 2009, in Lakewood, Colorado, with an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel,\nPHMSA, presiding. After the hearing, Respondent provided additional written material for the\nrecord, by letter dated November 2, 2009 (Closing).\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent committed violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\n\n\n\n2\nUncontested Items\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.323(d), which states:\n§ 192.323 Casing.\nEach casing used on a transmission line or main under a railroad or\nhighway must comply with the following:\n(a) . . . .\n(d) If vents are installed on a casing, the vents must be protected from\nthe weather to prevent water from entering the casing.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.323(d) by failing to protect casing\nvents from the weather to prevent water from entering the casing. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that certain plastic casings in the Spokane North District were broken, which could allow\nwater to enter the casing. In its Response and at the hearing, Respondent did not contest this\nallegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.323(d) by failing to protect casing vents from the weather.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.463(a), which states:\n§ 192.463 External corrosion control: Cathodic protection.\n(a) Each cathodic protection system required by this subpart must\nprovide a level of cathodic protection that complies with one or more of\nthe applicable criteria contained in appendix D of this part. If none of\nthese criteria is applicable, the cathodic protection system must provide a\nlevel of cathodic protection at least equal to that provided by compliance\nwith one or more of these criteria.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.463(a) by failing to have a cathodic\nprotection system that complied with one or more of the applicable criteria at the Franklin PUD,\nSpokane West, and Kettle Falls meter stations and at Mile Post (MP) 9747+36. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that, for two consecutive years, the company’s cathodic protection system at those\nfour specific locations did not have a negative voltage of at least 850 mV. In its Response and at\nthe hearing, Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a\nreview of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.463(a) by failing to\nhave a cathodic protection system at those four locations that complied with one or more of the\napplicable criteria contained in appendix D of Part 192.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.463(a), as quoted above,\nby failing to have a cathodic protection system that complied with one or more of the applicable\ncriteria at eleven locations in the Redmond District. Specifically, the Notice alleged that, for two\nconsecutive years, the company’s cathodic protection system at those locations did not have a\nnegative voltage of at least 850 mV. In its Response and at the hearing, Respondent did not\ncontest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I\nfind that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.463(a) by failing to have a cathodic protection\nsystem at those 11 locations that complied with one or more of the applicable criteria contained\nin appendix D of Part 192.\n\n\n\n3\nItem 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.706(a), which states:\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,\nin the 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 Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.706(a) by failing to conduct\nleakage surveys of an odorless gas transmission line in a Class 3 location at the required\nfrequency. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Williams failed to conduct four required surveys\nof such a line in Texas between 2006 and 2008. In its Response and at the hearing, Respondent\ndid not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.706(a) by failing to conduct leakage\nsurveys of a transmission line in a Class 3 location at the required frequency.\nPipeline Repair Items\nItems 5, 6, and 7 in the Notice alleged that Respondent committed violations of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.605(a) when it performed certain pipeline repairs. The regulation states:\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline,\na manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance\nactivities and for emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual\nmust also include procedures for handling abnormal operations. This\nmanual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. This manual\nmust be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence.\nAppropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow\nits written procedures for using composite sleeves for pipeline repairs. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Williams violated its operations and maintenance (O&M) procedures by using a\nClock Spring sleeve to repair a crack on the Transco Pipeline at MP 1828.139–1828.143 in New\nJersey.1\nParagraph 5.1.4 of Procedure 70.14.01.15 in the company’s operations manual\nprovides, “CAUTION: Do not use composite sleeves to repair leaking defects or cracking.”\nParagraph 6.1.7.1 of the same procedure provides, “Do not use composite sleeves to repair leaks,\ncracks, or weld imperfections.” The Notice alleged that Williams identified a crack on the\n1 Respondent referred to this repair as “Dig # 6.”\n\n\n\n4\nTransco Pipeline while repairing two gouges, and that the company used a Clock Spring\ncomposite sleeve to repair the crack, in violation of its procedures.2\nAt the hearing and in its Closing, Respondent indicated that “Williams is in agreement that it\nviolated written O&M procedures by applying a composite [sleeve] repair to a crack like\nindication caused from third party damage to the pipeline.”3 The company also provided\ninformation that it has since removed the Clock Spring repair and replaced it with new piping.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its procedures by repairing a crack at MP 1828.139–\n1828.143 with a Clock Spring composite sleeve.\nItem 6: The Notice similarly alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by using a\nClock Spring sleeve to repair a weld imperfection on the Transco Pipeline at MP 1829.836.\nnoted above, Respondent’s Procedure 70.14.01.15 prohibits the use of composite sleeves to\nrepair weld imperfections.\n4 As\nAt the hearing and in its Closing, Williams contested this allegation of violation on the grounds\nthat the defect it repaired using a Clock Spring did not constitute a crack or “weld imperfection”\nas that term is defined in API Standard 1104.\n5 Williams explained that it had originally\nexcavated the pipe at this location to examine and repair corrosion defects, and while in the\nditch, a technician identified what appeared to be possible incomplete fusion or a crack. In its\nClosing, Respondent stated that it now believes the defect was most likely incomplete fusion, not\ncracking, and that the defect was so small that it did not meet the company’s repair policy\nspecified in O&M Policy 90.12.00.03.6 That policy, Williams contended, stated that the\ncompany would repair or remove any in-service weld that is found to be unacceptable according\nto API Standard 1104, which is a consensus standard that specifies incomplete fusion shall be\ndefect was not a “crack or weld imperfection,” and the company did not violate its procedures by\ninstalling a composite sleeve. The company also provided information that it has since removed\nthe Clock Spring repair and replaced it with new piping.\nconsidered a defect if its length exceeds one inch.7 For this reason, Respondent contended, the\nThe evidence in the record includes section 6.1.7.1 of Respondent’s Procedure 70.14.01.15,\nwhich, as noted above, states: “Do not use composite sleeve to repair leaks, cracks, or weld\nimperfections.”8\nThe evidence also includes Form WGP-0092, “WGP Pipeline Inspection and\nRepair Report - 2006-TR-1170,” dated February 23, 2007, which Williams used to document the\n2 Clock Spring® composite sleeves, also known as wraps, are used to repair corrosion defects and mechanical\ndamage on the pipe. The composite sleeve operates by transferring the hoop stress from the defect to the sleeve.\nWraps are not typical candidates for leaking defects and cracking because they do not provide a seal for the leak and\ndo not address the risk of a crack spreading.\n3 Closing at 1.\n4 Respondent referred to this repair as “Dig # 14.”\n5 American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 1104, “Welding of Pipelines and Related Facilities.”\n6 Closing at 2.\n7 See Section 9.3.4 of API Standard 1104.\n8 Violation report at 42.\n\n\n\n5\ninvestigation and repair of the defect.\n9 On the form, Williams noted the areas of general\ncorrosion on the pipe and “also through the weld # 6890 @9:30 found a .120\" wall loss with a\nIncomplete Fussion [sic] or crack like indication,\n” noting further that “Clock springs were then\ninstalled.” On the associated Defect Report, Williams further identified the defect under “Defect\nRecord #2,” where the company noted the type was “Weld Defect.\n” With regard to whether a\n“Repair [was] Required,” Williams indicated “Yes.”10 The method of repair was recorded as a\n“Sleeve – Composite.” Also included in the record are color pictures of the defect.\nWhile Williams has contended that it believes the defect at issue was not cracking or a weld\nimperfection longer than one inch, there is a lack of conclusive evidence demonstrating the size\nof the weld imperfection or that the defect was indeed not cracking. On the other hand,\nRespondent’s own records indicate that the defect was cracking or a weld imperfection resulting\nfrom incomplete fusion, that it was required to be repaired, and that a composite sleeve was used\nto make the repair.\nUltimately, however, the size of the defect or whether it met the definition of a defect in API\nStandard 1104 is not the determinative factor. That is because the language of Respondent’s\nrepair procedure 70.14.01.15, section 6.1.7.1, prohibits the use of composite sleeves to repair\ncracks and weld imperfections, without any reference to defect size or other industry standard or\ncompany policy. Neither the applicable safety regulations nor the company’s repair procedure\n70.14.01.15, section 6.1.7.1, had adopted (or referenced) API Standard 1104 or even suggested\nthat the prohibitions relating to the use of composite sleeves are to be interpreted with reference\nto that standard. Furthermore, Williams had already determined the weld imperfection required\nrepair, and thus the API Standard did not overrule the company’s decision.\ninconsequential that the company had a policy of repairing defects meeting the API standard,\nbecause its repair procedure was not conditioned on that standard, and Williams still determined\nthat the weld imperfection was required to be repaired. The evidence in the record also indicates\nthat Williams did not consult the applicable procedures when deciding to repair the defect using\na composite sleeve.\n11 Therefore, it is\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.605(a) by failing to follow its procedures when it used a composite sleeve to repair a weld\nimperfection at MP 1829.836.\nItem 7: The Notice further alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by using a\nClock Spring sleeve to repair a weld imperfection on the Transco Pipeline at MP 1827.950.\nnoted above, Respondent’s Procedure 70.14.01.15 prohibits the use of composite sleeves to\nrepair weld imperfections.\n12 As\n9 Violation report at 58.\n10 Violation Report at 60.\n11 See Section 9.2 of API Standard 1104, which states: “The company may therefore reject any weld that appears to\nmeet these acceptance standards if, in its opinion, the depth of an imperfection may be detrimental to the weld.”\n12 Respondent referred to this repair as “Dig # 5.”\n\n\n\n6\nAt the hearing and in its Closing, Williams contested this allegation of violation on the same\ngrounds as Item 6, namely, that the defect did not constitute a crack or “weld imperfection,” as\nthat term is defined in API Standard 1104. Williams gave a similar account that the location had\nbeen excavated to repair general corrosion, but that a technician also identified possible\nincomplete fusion or a crack. In its Closing, Respondent stated that it believes the defect was\nmost likely incomplete fusion that did not meet the repair policy specified in O&M Policy\n90.12.00.03 or API Standard 1104. For this reason, Respondent contended that it did not violate\nits procedures by installing a composite sleeve. The company also provided information that it\nhas since removed the Clock Spring repair and replaced it with new piping.\nThe evidence in the record includes Form WGP-0092, “WGP Pipeline Inspection and Repair\nReport - 2006-TR-1168,” dated February 23, 2007, which Williams used to document the\ninvestigation and repair of the defect.13 On the form, Williams noted the areas of general\ncorrosion on the pipe and that it “found a crack like indication or Incomplete Fussion [sic] on\nG/W #3030 and Clock Springs were installed which also covered the areas of Corrosion that\nwere in question.” On the associated Defect Report, Williams further identified the defect under\n“Defect Record #1,” where it noted the defect type was “Cracking.” With regard to whether a\n“Sleeve – Composite.” In a follow-up email from the technician, he stated that incomplete\n“Repair [was] Required,” Williams indicated “Yes.”14 The method of repair was recorded as a\nfusion was the likely defect. Also included in the record are color pictures of the defect.\nAs with Item 6, there is a lack of conclusive evidence demonstrating the defect was indeed not\ncracking or a weld imperfection longer than one inch. Respondent’s own records indicate that\nthe defect was required to be repaired, and that it was repaired using a composite sleeve.\nUltimately, as noted above, it is inconsequential that the company had a policy of repairing\ndefects meeting the API standard, because the company’s actual repair procedure 70.14.01.15,\nsection 6.1.7.1, prohibited the use of composite sleeves for cracks and weld imperfections\nwithout regard to the API standard, and furthermore, Williams had determined that the weld\nimperfection required repair.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its procedures when it used a\ncomposite sleeve to repair a weld imperfection at MP 1827.950.\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 an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.\n13 Violation report at 68.\n14 Violation Report at 72.\n\n\n\n7\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I\nmust 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.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $192,600 for Items 5, 6, and 7 ($64,200 for each).\nIn its Response, Williams objected to “the assessment of three separate penalties for essentially\nthe same violation” and asked that two of the three proposed penalties be eliminated. At the\nhearing, Williams repeated this argument and listed the factors that, in its view, supported a\nconclusion that the three violations were “essentially the same”: 1) the three defects repaired\nusing Clock Springs were identified during the same inline inspection; 2) the Clock Springs were\napplied to segments of the same pipeline; 3) the repairs to the segments were carried out as a\nresult of a single decision by Williams; 4) Williams ordered the three Clock Springs at the same\ntime; and 5) the segments were repaired at nearly the same time.\nAt the hearing, OPS contended that the violations should not be considered the same offense,\nbecause the repairs were made in separate locations and at separate times.\nAs a legal matter, PHMSA is not precluded from assessing separate civil penalties for multiple\nviolations that involve the same subject matter, so long as the penalties do not violate the\nmaximum amounts established by Congress.15 Administrative civil penalty assessments by\nPHMSA are governed by the following provision of 49 U.S.C. § 60122(a)(1):\nA person that the Secretary of Transportation decides, after written notice and an\nopportunity for a hearing, has violated section 60114(b), 60114(d), or 60118(a) of\nthis title or a regulation prescribed or order issued under this chapter is liable to\nthe United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $100,000 for\neach violation. A separate violation occurs for each day the violation continues.\nThe maximum civil penalty under this paragraph for a related series of violations\nis $1,000,000.\nAs set forth previously by this agency, certain violations in a Notice of Probable Violation may\nbe so related that they constitute a single offense for which the agency should not assess\ncombined penalties exceeding the applicable cap. In determining whether two or more violations\nare so closely related, PHMSA’s decision in Colorado Interstate Gas evaluated “whether each\n[Notice Item] can stand alone and has its own evidentiary basis, or whether any two or more are\nso closely related (i.e., same evidentiary basis) that they are not separate and should be\nconsidered one violation for purposes of applying the [penalty cap].”16\n15 In the Matter of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P., Final Order, CPF No. 3-2008-5011, at 14-15 (Aug. 17, 2010)\n(cases are available online at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).\n16 In the Matter of Colorado Interstate Gas Co., Final Order, CPF 5-2008-1005, 2009 WL 5538649, at 12 (Nov. 23,\n2009).\n\n\n\n8\nIn this case, the three Clock Spring repairs using composite sleeves were applied to three\ndifferent locations on the pipeline to repair distinct and separate defects. Although the violations\nshare the same evidence of the procedure that was violated, each item is based on separate\nevidence specific to the defect that was repaired and the act of repairing the defect using a\ncomposite sleeve. The fact that Williams excavated the three locations based on information\nobtained from a single inline inspection, that Williams ordered all the Clock Springs at the same\ntime, or that the repairs were carried out as a result of a single decision by Williams does not\nmake these violations a single offense. Furthermore, I note that even if all three were considered\none “related series of violations,” the total civil penalty proposed ($192,600) does not exceed the\nstatutory maximum of $1,000,000. Accordingly, I find that Items 5, 6, and 7 constituted separate\nviolations of § 192.605(a), and that they should be considered separate violations for penalty\npurposes.\nWilliams is culpable for the violations, meaning the company, as the operator of the pipeline,\nbears the blame for its violations of the unambiguous regulation, which requires the company to\nfollow its written procedures for maintaining the pipeline.\nI have considered the company’s history of prior offenses, including the Final Order issued by\nPHMSA on July 30, 2007, which assessed a civil penalty of over $590,000 for violations that\nresulted in a pipeline incident in a populated area that forced the evacuation of more than 850\nschoolchildren and area residents.\nproposed civil penalty in this case.\n17 The history of prior offenses does not warrant reducing the\nSince Respondent did not provide any evidence suggesting the company is unable to pay the\nproposed civil penalty, I find Respondent is able to pay the proposed penalty without adversely\naffecting its ability to continue in business.\nIn addition, I have considered any good faith in attempting to comply, but find that Williams did\nnot demonstrate that it had consulted the company’s procedures before deciding to repair the\ncrack and weld imperfections using composite sleeves.\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $64,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.605(a). This violation occurred when Williams failed to follow its procedures for\nrepairing a crack on its pipeline at MP 1828.139–1828.143. The failure to follow such repair\nprocedures created a safety risk, because installation of composite sleeves do not normally\naddress the propensity for a crack to spread and would not provide sufficient protection from a\nleak. The repair location is in a high consequence area and Class 3 location.\nWith respect to Items 5, 6, and 7, Williams argued that the use of Clock Springs did not pose an\nintegrity or safety threat and provided evidence suggesting that Clock Springs may be\nappropriate for repairing some pipeline cracks and weld imperfections. This evidence largely\nconsisted of materials issued by the manufacturer of Clock Springs. Notwithstanding this\nevidence, which is not conclusive, the operator’s adherence to its written procedures is vital to\nensuring pipeline safety. This is particularly true in relation to procedures governing pipeline\nrepairs.\n17 In the Matter of Williams Gas Pipeline - Transco, Final Order, CPF 1-2005-1007, 2007 WL 2475903 (Jul. 30,\n2007).\n\n\n\n9\nFortunately, the violations described in Items 5, 6, and 7 did not result in any incidents and the\ncompany has removed and replaced the sections of pipe containing the defects and composite\nsleeves. Respondent also indicated at the hearing that it operates the pipeline at less than\nmaximum allowable operating pressure. However, pipeline cracks and weld imperfections – and\nimproper repair of such defects – can still cause pipeline failures and natural gas releases. All\nthree of the violations took place in high consequence areas and Class 3 locations, and a release\nof natural gas would likely have caused adverse impacts on nearby populations and the\nenvironment. For this reason, I find the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation\njustify the proposed civil penalty.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $64,200 for the violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) in Item 5.\nItem 6: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $64,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.605(a). This violation occurred when Williams failed to follow its procedures for\nrepairing a weld imperfection on its pipeline at MP 1829.836.\nWilliams argued that it was not required to repair the weld imperfections that are the subject of\nItems 6 and 7, and that it should not be penalized for taking extra precautions. At the time the\nrepairs were made, however, Williams had determined that the repairs were necessary, and failed\nto consult its procedures that specified that sleeves were not to be used for such repairs. While it\nmay be true that the weld imperfections were relatively small in size, the fact remains that the\npipeline defects were improperly repaired based on the company’s procedures. Carrying out\nrepairs safely is a vital part of ensuring the integrity of a pipeline system, and adherence to a\ncompany’s repair procedures is just as important in the context of repairs considered relatively\nminor. Therefore, the fact that the company violated its procedures in the course of repairing\ndefects that are now considered relatively minor does not alter the nature or circumstances of the\nviolations. Based on the foregoing, the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violations\nsupport the proposed penalties.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $64,200 for the violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) in Item 6.\nItem 7: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $64,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.605(a). This violation occurred when Williams failed to follow its procedures for\nrepairing a weld imperfection on its pipeline at MP 1827.950. For all of the reasons set forth\nabove, I find the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violations support the proposed\npenalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I\nassess Respondent a civil penalty of $64,200 for the violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) in\nItem 7.\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $192,600.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49\nC.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\n\n\n\n10\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $192,600 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual\nrate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 in the Notice\nfor the above violations. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director has indicated that\nRespondent has taken the following actions to address some of the cited violations:\nWith respect to the violation of § 192.323(a) (Item 1), Respondent has replaced the broken\ncasing vents and has inspected and remediated, as necessary, all of the installed casings in\nSpokane North and South districts. Respondent has also submitted documentation to this effect.\nWith respect to the violation of § 192.463(a) (Item 3), Respondent has tested, evaluated, and,\nwhere necessary, enhanced its cathodic protection system at the subject area to comply with the\nAppendix D criteria, and has submitted documentation to this effect.\nWith respect to the violations of § 192.605(a) (Items 5, 6, and 7), Williams has repaired the\npipeline defects by removing the damaged segments and replacing them with new pipe, and has\nsubmitted documentation to this effect.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations.\nTherefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Items 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 are not\nincluded in this Order.\nAs for the remaining compliance terms, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49\nC.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with\nthe pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.463(a) (Item 4), Respondent must test, evaluate,\nand, where necessary, enhance its cathodic protection system at the subject area to\ncomply with the Appendix D criteria, and submit to PHMSA documentation to this\neffect within 180 days of receipt of this Final Order.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 192.706(a) (Item 9), Respondent must conduct a leak\nsurvey of the Class 3 area between MP 328 and MP 328.5, and must submit to PHMSA\nthe results of this survey and any mitigation plans within 90 days of receipt of this Final\nOrder.\n\n\n\n11\n3. Complete each of the above items and submit documentation of compliance to the\nDirector, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, 12300 W. Dakota Ave. #110,\nLakewood, CO 80228.\n4. Maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this\nCompliance Order and report the total cost as follows: (a) total cost associated with\npreparation and revision of plans and procedures, and performance of studies and\nanalyses; and (b) total cost associated with physical changes, if any, to the pipeline\ninfrastructure, including replacements and additions.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not\nto exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 2, 8, and 10, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to\nbe warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.463(a) (Item 2) – Respondent’s alleged failure to provide adequate\ncathodic protection in Districts 120 and 130 of the Atlanta Division. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that Respondent’s use of “reference cell placement,” as described in its\nwritten Procedure 20.06.02.06, did not properly consider the effects of “IR drop” to\nensure a valid interpretation of the criteria set forth in § 192.463(a);\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Item 8) – Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its procedures\nfor performing root cause failure analysis; and\n49 C.F.R. § 192.905(a) (Item 10) – Respondent’s alleged failure to accurately identify a\nClass 3 high consequence area in its pipeline system.\nWilliams presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited items. Accordingly, having considered such information, I find, pursuant to 49\nC.F.R. § 190.205, that probable violations of §§ 192.463(a) (Notice Item 2), 192.605(a) (Notice\nItem 8), and 192.905(a) (Notice Item 10) have occurred and Respondent is hereby advised to\ncorrect such conditions as necessary. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a\nsubsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\n\n\n\n12\nwill accept a petition received no later than 20 days after receipt of this Final Order by the\nRespondent, provided it contains a brief statement of the issue(s) and meets all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed. All other terms of the order, including any required corrective action,\nshall remain in full force and effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ _____________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n520091003_NOPV PCP PCO_04202009_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nApril 20, 2009\nMs. Marie Sotak\nManager Pipeline Safety\nWilliams Gas Pipelines\n2800 Post Oak Boulevard\nHouston, TX 77056\nCPF 5-2009-1003\nDear Ms. Sotak:\nFrom June through August 2008, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected Williams\nGas Pipeline’s (WGP’s) procedures, records and pipeline facilities in the states of Georgia,\nIdaho, New Jersey, Texas, Utah, and Washington.\nAs a result of the inspections, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the\nprobable violations are:\n\n\n\n1. §192.323 Casing\nEach casing used on a transmission line or main under a railroad or highway must comply\nwith the following:\n(d) If vents are installed on a casing, the vents must be protected from the weathe","truncated":true,"body_characters":67070}