{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120101009","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":"2010-11-01","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.605(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120101009.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120101009.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120101009","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120101009","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.605(a). The case was opened on 2010-11-01 and is reported as closed as of 2011-01-31. Proposed civil penalty: $29,600. Assessed civil penalty: $29,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120101009_Final Order_01312011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120101009/120101009_Final%20Order_01312011.pdf\n\n120101009_Final Order_01312011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120101009/120101009_Final%20Order_01312011_text.pdf\n\n120101009_NOPV PCP_11012010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120101009/120101009_NOPV%20PCP_11012010.pdf\n\n120101009_NOPV PCP_11012010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120101009/120101009_NOPV%20PCP_11012010_text.pdf\n\n120101009_Operator_Response_Proof_of_Payment_11302010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120101009/120101009_Operator_Response_Proof_of_Payment_11302010.pdf\n\n120101009_Final Order_01312011_text.pdf\n\nJAN 31 2011\nMr. Victor Gaglio\nSenior Vice President of Operations\nColumbia Gas Transmission LLC\n1700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE\nCharleston, WV 25314\nRe: CPF No. 1-2010-1009\nDear Mr. Gaglio:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $29,600. This letter acknowledges receipt of payment of\nthe full penalty amount, by wire transfer, dated November 23, 2010. This enforcement action is\nnow closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of\nmailing, or as otherwise provided 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: Byron Coy, P.E., Director, Eastern Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0041 3511]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nColumbia Gas Transmission LLC, ) CPF No. 1-2010-1009\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn September 20 and October 1, 2008, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nWest Virginia Public Service Commission (WV PSC), as agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-\nsite pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Columbia Gas Transmission LLC\n(Columbia Gas or Respondent) in Marshall County, West Virginia. Columbia Gas transports\nnatural gas through a 12,000-mile pipeline network in 10 states.1\nColumbia Gas is owned and\noperated by NiSource, Inc., an energy company engaged in natural gas transmission, storage, and\ndistribution.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated November 1, 2010, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty\n(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Columbia\nGas had violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $29,600 for\nthe alleged violation.\nColumbia Gas responded to the Notice by letter dated November 30, 2010 (Response). The\ncompany did not contest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of\n$29,600 as provided in 49 C.F.R. § 190.227. Payment of the penalty serves to close the case\nwith prejudice to Respondent.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Columbia Gas did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49\nC.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), which states in\nrelevant part:\n1 http://www.ngts.com/ (last accessed on December 28, 2010).\n\n\n\n2\n§ 192.605--Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each\npipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and\nmaintenance activities and for emergency response. For transmission\nlines, the manual must also include procedures for handling abnormal\noperations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the\noperator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each\ncalendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a\npipeline system commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be\nkept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are\nconducted….\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its plan\nfor protecting the coating of its pipelines from exposure to sunlight and weather and from ground\nmovement as outlined in the project-specific procedures. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nColumbia Gas failed to follow its written procedures requiring that pipe coatings exposed for\nmore than two months be painted with white, latex paint to protect the pipe from UV and\nweather and that the pipe and coating be protected from movement by placing the pipe on sand\nbags.\n2\nIn October 2007, in anticipation of surface subsidence activities, Columbia’s personnel\ncompleted the stripping of cover and exposure of lines 1758 and 10100. After the mining\nactivities were concluded, in September 2008, Columbia Gas planned to recoat and backfill the\npipeline and restore the right-of-way. WV PSC performed an inspection during this time period\nand discovered that portions of the exposed pipeline were not painted with white, latex paint as\nrequired by Respondent’s procedures. Specifically, paragraph 2 of Section III of the Corrosion\nControl Plan for Long-Wall Mining, required that “pipe coatings that are going to be exposed for\nmore than 2 months will be painted with a white, latex paint from a hardware store for protection\nfrom UV and weather.”3 Columbia Gas failed to follow its procedures for this project. The\nrecord includes photographs of the unpainted, exposed lines dated September 30, 2008 and\nOctober 1, 2008 taken by the inspector as evidence of this allegation of violation.4\nIn addition, the Respondent’s project plan also required that “[t]he pipe and coatings shall be\nprotected from movement by placing the pipe on sandbags.”5 During the inspection, the\ninspector observed that several sections of the pipe were lying directly on the bottom of the\ntrench and that the pipe was not placed on sandbags.6 Respondent did not contest this allegation\nof violation and explained that the condition was addressed subsequent to the WV PSC\n2 Corrosion Control Plan for Long-Wall Mining, Section III, Field Coating, paragraphs 1 & 2.\n3 Id.\n4 See Exhibit A, Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), November 1, 2010, (on file with PHMSA).\n5 Corrosion Control Plan for Long-Wall Mining, Section III, Field Coating, paragraph 1.\n6 Violation Report at 3.\n\n\n\n3\ninspection and the pipe is no longer exposed. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its project-\nspecific plan and procedures.\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. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $29,600 for the violation cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $29,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.605(a), for failing to follow its project-specific plan and procedures. Columbia Gas did\nnot contest the allegation but confirmed that it addressed the concerns after the WV PSC\ninspection and the pipeline is no longer exposed or in an active mining area. Accordingly,\nhaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil\npenalty of $29,600, which Columbia Gas has already remitted to PHMSA.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":9144}