{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120071004","title":"COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2007-04-05","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.163(d), 192.163(e), 192.465(d), 192.481(c), 192.603(b), 192.605(a), 192.709(c), 192.731(b), 192.739, 192.739(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120071004.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120071004.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120071004","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120071004","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.163(d),  192.163(e),  192.465(d),  192.481(c),  192.603(b),  192.605(a),  192.709(c),  192.731(b),  192.739,  192.739(a). The case was opened on 2007-04-05 and is reported as closed as of 2009-12-29. Proposed civil penalty: $126,000. Assessed civil penalty: $90,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120071004_FinalOrder_12172009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120071004/120071004_FinalOrder_12172009.pdf\n\n120071004_FinalOrder_12172009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120071004/120071004_FinalOrder_12172009_text.pdf\n\n120071004_NOPVandPCP_4-5-07.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120071004/120071004_NOPVandPCP_4-5-07.pdf\n\n120071004_nopvandpcp_4-5-07_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120071004/120071004_nopvandpcp_4-5-07_text.pdf\n\n120071004_operator response to notice letter_05012007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120071004/120071004_operator%20response%20to%20notice%20letter_05012007.pdf\n\n120071004_FinalOrder_12172009_text.pdf\n\nDEC 17 2009\nMr. Victor Gaglio\nSenior Vice President of Operations\nColumbia Gas Transmission, LLC\n1700 MacCorkle Avenue, S.E.\nP.O. Box 1273\nCharleston, WV 25325\nRe: CPF No. 1-2007-1004\nDear Mr. Gaglio:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes certain findings of\nviolation and assesses a reduced civil penalty of $90,000. The penalty payment terms are set\nforth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment.\nYour receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Byron Coy, Director, OPS Eastern Region\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 0390 0005 6162 5159]\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 )\nColumbia Gas Transmission, LLC, ) CPF No. 1-2007-1004\nformerly Columbia Gas Transmission )\nCorporation, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween May 23, 2005, and August 22, 2005, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of\nthe West Virginia Public Service Commission (WVPSC), as agent for the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Columbia Gas\nTransmission, LLC (Columbia or Respondent) in its West Virginia operating areas.\nis owned by NiSource, Inc., an energy company engaged in natural gas transmission, storage and\ndistribution, as well as electric generation, transmission and distribution. Respondent transports\nnatural gas through a pipeline system consisting of more than 12,000 miles in 10 states.\n1 Columbia\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter\ndated April 5, 2007, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had\ncommitted certain violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and assessing a civil penalty of $126,000 for\nthe alleged violations. The Notice also proposed finding that Columbia had committed certain\nother probable violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and warning Respondent to take appropriate\ncorrective action or be subject to future enforcement action.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated May 1, 2007 (Response). Columbia\ncontested one of the allegations of violation and requested that the proposed civil penalty be\nreduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\n1 Columbia converted from a corporation to a limited liability company, changing its name to Columbia Gas\nTransmission, LLC, effective December 9, 2008.\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192 as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c), which states:\n§ 192.709 Transmission lines: Record keeping.\nEach operator shall maintain the following records for transmission\nlines for the periods specified:\n(a) ….\n(c) A record of each patrol, survey, inspection, and test required\nby subparts L and M of this part must be retained for at least 5 years or\nuntil the next patrol, survey, inspection, or test is completed, whichever is\nlonger.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c) by failing to maintain\nrecords of each patrol, survey, inspection, or test required under Subparts L and M of 49 C.F.R.\nPart 192 for at least five years or until the next survey, patrol, survey, inspection or test,\nwhichever is longer. Specifically, it alleged that Columbia failed to maintain records for\ninspections occurring in the 2004 calendar year for valve numbers 1266343 and 1266346 on line\nBM-74. Respondent was required to retain all inspection records for a period of five years or\nuntil the next survey was completed. In a letter dated November 4, 2005, Respondent\nacknowledged the lack of available records for these valves during the 2004 calendar year.\n2\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c) by failing to maintain the\nrecord of each patrol, survey, inspection or test required under Subparts L and M of Part 192 for\nat least five years or until the next patrol, survey, inspection, or test is completed, whichever is\nlonger.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.731(b), which states:\n§ 192.731 Compressor stations: Inspection and testing of relief devices.\n(a) Except for rupture discs, each pressure relieving device in a\ncompressor station must be inspected and tested in accordance with\n§§ 192.739 and 192.743, and must be operated periodically to determine\nthat it opens at the correct set pressure.\n(b) Any defective or inadequate equipment found must be promptly\nrepaired or replaced....\nThe Notice alleged that the Respondent violated § 192.731(b) by failing to promptly replace\ninadequate or defective equipment at compressor stations. Specifically, it alleged that at the time\nof the WVPSC inspection, the relief valve at the Ceredo Compressor Station in Wayne County,\nWest Virginia, did not have covers. Without proper covers, liquids or materials could\naccumulate on the relief valve, adversely affecting the operation of the pipeline. Columbia\nshould have noted this defect in equipment and promptly replaced the covers pursuant to\n2 See Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), March 27, 2007, Exhibit A.\n\n\n\n3\n§ 192.731(b). During the inspection, Columbia agreed to install temporary covers until a more\nRespondent must replace missing covers promptly. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated\npermanent solution could be achieved.3 However, the pipeline safety regulations require that\n49 C.F.R. §192.731(b) by failing to replace promptly the defective or inadequate equipment at its\nCeredo Compressor Station.\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b), which states:\n§ 192.603 General provisions.\n(a) ….\n(b) Each operator shall keep records necessary to administer the\nprocedures established under § 192.605….\nThe Notice alleged that the Respondent violated § 192.603(b) by failing to keep records\nnecessary to administer the procedures established under § 192.605.4 Specifically, it alleged that\nColumbia failed to produce records for the 2002 and 2003 calendar years confirming inspections\nof the fuel gas relief valve at the Grant Compressor Station. Columbia must retain such records\nin order to demonstrate that it has verified the relief valve capacity. Respondent acknowledged\nthe lack of available records for calendar years 2002 and 2003.\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. §192.603(b) by failing to keep records necessary to administer\nthe procedures established under §192.605.\n5 Accordingly, I find that\nItem 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(c) which states:\n§ 192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a)….\n(c) If atmospheric corrosion is found during an inspection, the\noperator must provide protection against the corrosion as required by\n§ 192.479.\nThe Notice alleged that the Respondent violated § 192.481(c) by failing to provide protection\nagainst atmospheric corrosion, as required under § 192.479. Specifically, it alleged that\nColumbia failed to clean and coat portions of the RM-1108 line after discovering that\natmospheric corrosion had occurred.6 Respondent became aware of atmospheric corrosion on\nline RM-1108 in November 2003, as documented by the 2002 Maximo report. Columbia\nexperienced four corrosion-related leaks on this line between January 2002 and December 2003.7\n3 Violation Report, Exhibit A.\n4 49 C.F.R. § 192.605 requires each operator to maintain and follow written procedures for operation, maintenance,\nand emergency response activities.\n5 Violation Report, Exhibit A.\n6 49 C.F.R § 192.479 sets forth the requirements for coating and cleaning pipelines to prevent atmospheric\ncorrosion.\n7 Violation Report, at 13.\n\n\n\n4\nHowever, Respondent failed to take prompt action to address this matter. As of the date of the\nAugust 2005 inspection, Columbia still had not remediated the line.\n8 In a letter dated November\n4, 2005, Columbia acknowledged the existence of atmospheric corrosion on this line and stated\nviolated 49 C.F.R. §192.481(c) by failing to provide protection against atmospheric corrosion, as\nrequired by § 192.479.\nthat remediation activities were scheduled for 2006.9 Accordingly, I find that Respondent\nItem 10: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465 which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each pipeline that is under cathodic protection must be tested at\nleast once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months,\nto determine whether the cathodic protection meets the requirements of\n§192.463….\n(d) Each operator shall take prompt remedial action to correct any\ndeficiencies indicated by the monitoring….\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to take prompt remedial action to correct deficiencies\nin the cathodic protection on its pipeline that had been identified through periodic testing.\nSpecifically, it alleged that the company failed to undertake remedial work to correct the pipeline\nelectrical potential levels for test stations 103 +19 and 74 +20 on Line 8241. Each pipeline must\nhave sufficient electrical potential measured by readings taken at test stations to determine the\nadequacy of cathodic protection.\nparticular test stations were below the minimum cathodic protection standard. However,\nRespondent neither took prompt action to correct this issue nor presented any explanation for its\nfailure to do so. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §192.465(d) by failing\nto take prompt remedial action to correct cathodic protection deficiencies.\n10 Respondent was aware that readings taken at these two\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION\nItem 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739 which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and\ntesting.\n(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture\ndiscs), and pressure regulating station and its equipment must be subjected\n8 Id.\n.\n9 Violation Report, Exhibit A.\n10 49 C.F.R. § 192.469.\n\n\n\n5\nat intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year,\nto inspections and tests to determine that it is-\n(1) In good mechanical condition;\n(2) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of\noperation for the service in which it is employed….\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to inspect each pressure limiting station, relief device,\nand pressure regulating station and its equipment at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at\nleast once each calendar year. Specifically, it alleged that Columbia could not document that it\nhad inspected regulator station RS-6821 on Line 18044 in Rowlesburg, Preston County, between\n2002 and 2005. In its Response, Columbia contested this allegation and produced inspection\nreports from 2002 and 2003 for this regulator station, as well as the Maximo records for 2002-\n2005. These records confirm that Columbia performed the annual inspections required under 49\nC.F.R. § 192.739. Accordingly, upon reviewing these records, I find that the Respondent did\nperform the required inspections for calendar years 2002 to 2005 and therefore the allegation of\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.739 is hereby withdrawn.\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.\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. The Notice proposed a total civil\npenalty of $126,000 for the violations.\nWith respect to Item 1, the Notice proposed a penalty of $11,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c), for failing to retain valve inspection records for the 2004 calendar year.\nPipeline operators are required to conduct routine patrols and leakage surveys in order to confirm\nthe condition of their lines. Without these records, the public cannot be assured that an operator\nhas conducted the required tests to determine whether the valves are functioning properly. If\nthese inspections are not performed, a valve could be inoperable during an emergency and\nthereby allow the release of product into the environment. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $11,000 for\nviolating 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c).\nWith respect to Item 4, the Notice proposed a penalty of $18,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.731, for failing to take prompt action to replace missing relief valve covers.\nRelief valves are particularly important to pipeline safety since they reduce the internal pressure\n\n\n\n6\nof the pipeline. Without adequate equipment to cover each valve, liquids or materials could\naccumulate on the valve, thereby inhibiting its proper operation. This maintenance oversight\ncould lead to a potential malfunction of the pipeline. Accordingly, having reviewed the record\nand considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $18,000 for\nviolating 49 C.F.R. § 192.731.\nWith respect to Item 7, the Notice proposed a penalty of $20,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b), for failing to produce 2002 and 2003 inspection records for the fuel gas\nrelief valve at the Grant Compressor Station. By failing to produce inspection records,\nRespondent was unable to demonstrate that the fuel gas relief valve was property inspected and\nmaintained. A properly functioning relief valve is paramount to pipeline safety. This particular\nrelief valve is a “first cut regulator,” which is responsible for the principal reduction of gas flow\nin a pipeline. An inoperable relief valve, particularly a first cut regulator, could lead to a pipeline\nfailure and ultimately a release of product into the environment. Accordingly, having reviewed\nthe record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $20,000\nfor violating 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b).\nWith respect to Item 8, the Notice proposed a penalty of $25,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.481(c), for failing to provide protection against atmospheric corrosion after it\nhad been discovered. Columbia repaired four corrosion-related leaks on this pipeline between\nJanuary 2002 and December 2003, demonstrating that the line was susceptible to corrosion.\nColumbia discovered additional atmospheric corrosion on the line in 2003, yet failed to promptly\nclean and coat the affected portion. As of the date of the 2005 inspection, Columbia still had not\ncleaned and coated the line. Corrosion, both external and internal, is one of the conditions most\nthreatening to the integrity of pipelines, and which, if left uncorrected, can result in the rupture of\nthe pipeline. Respondent’s failure to take prompt action in this case placed the safety of the\npublic and the pipeline at risk. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $25,000 for violating 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.481(c).\nWith respect to Item 10, the Notice proposed a penalty of $16,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d), for failing to take prompt remedial action to correct deficiencies in the\nlevel of pipeline electrical potential at two test stations. Pipeline electrical potential is an\nimportant component in maintaining effective cathodic protection and reducing the risk of\ncorrosion. By failing to promptly correct the electrical potential levels at these test stations,\nColumbia permitted an increased risk of external corrosion, which could potentially lead to a\npipeline failure. Respondent’s inaction placed the safety of the pipeline operation and the public\nat risk. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $16,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d).\nAs noted above, I have withdrawn Item 9 of the Notice, including the proposed penalty of\n$36,000.\nIn summary, having reviewed the entire record and the penalty assessment criteria for all of the\nItems discussed above, I assess a total civil penalty of $90,000. Payment of the $90,000 civil\npenalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3))\nrequire this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal Reserve Communications\n\n\n\n7\nSystem (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the\nenclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations\nDivision (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center,\nP.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $90,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin 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 United\nStates District Court.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 2, 3, 5 and 6, the Notice alleged probable violations of 49 CFR Part 192\nbut did not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are\nconsidered to be warning items. The warnings are for the following:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Notice Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to\nperform leak detection surveys on Line PL-BKY in the area of Rt. 52 at the\nrequired intervals, between December 30, 2002, and August 29, 2003;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a) (Notice Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect\na pressure limiting switch (equipment No. 501439) at the Kenova Compressor\nStation within the maximum 15-month interval;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.163(e) (Notice Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to install\nelectrical (boundary) seals at the Ceredo Compressor Station to prevent potential\nignition; and\n49 C.F.R. § 192.163(d) (Notice Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to\nmaintain proper exit gates within the fenced area around the Grant Compressor\nStation.\nRespondent acknowledged these probable violations in its letters dated November 5, 2005, and\nSeptember 30, 2005.11\nI find, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, that probable violations of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a)\n(Notice Item 2), 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a) (Notice Item 3), 49 C.F.R. § 192.163(e) (Notice Item 5),\nand 49 C.F.R. § 192.163(d) (Notice Item 6) have occurred and Respondent is hereby advised to\ncorrect such conditions. In the event that OPS finds a violation for any of these items in a\nsubsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\n11 Violation Report, Exhibit A.\n\n\n\n8\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 received within 20 days of Respondent’s receipt of this\nFinal Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However if Respondent submits\npayment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the\nright to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order shall\nbe effective upon receipt.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":22206}