{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120121012","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":"2012-05-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.481(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120121012.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120121012.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120121012","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120121012","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.481(b). The case was opened on 2012-05-07 and is reported as closed as of 2013-05-13. Proposed civil penalty: $28,700. Assessed civil penalty: $28,700. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120121012_Closure Letter_05132013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121012/120121012_Closure%20Letter_05132013.pdf\n\n120121012_Closure Letter_05132013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121012/120121012_Closure%20Letter_05132013_text.pdf\n\n120121012_Final Order_12272012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121012/120121012_Final%20Order_12272012.pdf\n\n120121012_Final Order_12272012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121012/120121012_Final%20Order_12272012_text.pdf\n\n120121012_NOPV_PCP-PCO_05072012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121012/120121012_NOPV_PCP-PCO_05072012.pdf\n\n120121012_NOPV_PCP_PCO_05072012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121012/120121012_NOPV_PCP_PCO_05072012_text.pdf\n\n120121012_Operator Response_06072012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121012/120121012_Operator%20Response_06072012.pdf\n\n120121012_Closure Letter_05132013_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department Of Transportation Pipeline and 609.989.2171\nHazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103\nWest Trenton, NJ 08628\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY\nMay 13, 2013\nShawn Patterson\nPresident, Engineering & Project Development\nNiSource Gas Transmission & Storage\n1700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE\nCharleston, WV 25314\nCPF 1-2012-1012\nDear Mr. Patterson:\nOn December 27, 2012, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage (for Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. in the\nPort Jervis area of Pennsylvania) a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order\nincluded a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the\ndocumentation you provided, and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been\ndetermined 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,\nByron Coy, PE\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n120121012_Final Order_12272012_text.pdf\n\nDECEMBER 27, 2012\nRobert C. Skaggs, Jr.\nPresident & CEO\nNiSource, Inc.\n801 East 86th Ave.\nMerrillville, Indiana 46410\nRe: CPF No. 1-2012-1012\nDear Mr. Skaggs:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $28,700. It further specifies actions that need to be taken\nby NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage Company to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty\nhas been paid and the terms of the compliance order satisfied, as determined by the Director,\nEastern Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified\nmail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Byron E. Coy, Eastern Region Director, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nMr. William T. Kilpatrick, Vice President Operations, NiSource Gas Transmission and\nStorage Company, 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE, Charleston, WV 25314\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\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 )\nNiSource Gas Transmission & Storage ) Company, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nCPF No. 1-2012-1012\nFINAL ORDER\nDuring the week of September 19-23, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of NiSource Gas Transmission & Storage\nCompany’s (NGTSC or Respondent) facilities operated by Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC,\nin the Port Jervis area of Pennsylvania. NGTSC is a subsidiary of NiSource, Inc.1 The\nColumbia Gas Transmission system consists of approximately 12,000 miles of pipeline\ntransporting an average of three billion cubic feet of natural gas per day through 10 states.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated May 7, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that NGTSC had violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481 and proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $28,700 for the alleged violation. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to\ntake certain measures to correct the alleged violation.\nNGTSC responded to the Notice by letter dated June 7, 2012 (Response). The company\ncontested portions of the allegation, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and\nrequested that the proposed civil penalty be eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing\nand therefore has waived its right to one.\n1 NiSource, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10K), at Exhibit 21 (February 24, 2012).\n2 NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage Home Page, http://www ngts.com/en/home.aspx (last visited December\n11, 2012).\n\n\n\n2\nFINDING 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. § 192.481(b), which states:\n§ 192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline\nthat is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion…\n(b) During inspections the operator must give particular attention to\npipe at soil-to-air interfaces, under thermal insulation, under disbonded\ncoatings, at pipe supports, in splash zones, at deck penetrations, and in\nspans over water.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(b) by failing to give particular\nattention during atmospheric corrosion inspections to portions of the pipeline under thermal\ninsulation. Specifically, the Notice alleged that NGTSC did not have general guidance or\nspecified prescribed locations in its procedures advising staff where corrosion would likely occur\non pipe under thermal insulation. In addition, the Notice alleged that when company records\nwere reviewed for the period from 2008 through 2011, there were no records showing any\ninsulation that had ever been removed to inspect for atmospheric corrosion. Finally, the Notice\nalleged that at the Easton and Hellertown Compressor stations, there was piping and other\npipeline facilities encased in thermal insulation, and that company personnel acknowledge that\nthey did not remove the insulation to inspect for atmospheric corrosion.\nIn its Response, NGTSC did not contest the allegation that it failed to give particular attention to\nthe possibility of atmospheric corrosion under thermal insulation and conceded that its personnel\ndid not remove the insulation during the atmospheric corrosion inspections at the Easton and\nHellertown Compression Stations. NGTSC contended, however, that when NGTSC personnel\n“indicated that they do not remove insulation during the atmospheric inspection, they were\nspecifically referring to the areas noted at Easton and Hellertown, and were not referring to a\nstandard practice for all insulated pipe.”3 NGTSC stated that the facilities in question at Easton\nand Hellertown were located in covered areas inside of buildings and not considered prone to\ncorrosion; therefore, the insulation was not removed.\nSection 192.481 requires that pipeline operators inspect each onshore pipeline that is exposed to\nthe atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion. During such inspections, an operator\nmust give particular attention to certain pipeline features, such as pipe at soil-to-air interfaces,\nunder thermal insulation, under disbonded coatings, and at pipe supports. NGTSC’s Procedure\n70.001.001, Inspection – Atmospheric Corrosion, Section 2.5.1, states that any insulation where\ncorrosion has been found during the last inspection or where corrosion is likely to occur must be\nremoved. However, the procedures did not contain general guidance or specific prescribed\nlocations in the procedures advising staff of where corrosion would likely occur. Section 2.5.6 1\nof the procedure states that NGTSC must record what insulation has been removed during the\ninspection. NGTSC, however, did not have any records of insulation that had ever been removed\n3 Response at 2.\n\n\n\n3\nfor the purpose of inspecting underneath for atmospheric corrosion, nor did the company produce\nany such records in its Response.\nContrary to NGTSC’s assertion, the regulation does not somehow “exempt” an operator from\nremoving thermal insulation during an inspection from portions of a pipeline that are located in\ncovered areas that the operator has generally determined are not considered prone to corrosion.\nAs PHMSA has previously explained, “local moisture conditions, chemicals in the environment,\nand air-soil interfaces may result in severe corrosion in areas where corrosion is not expected.” 4\nIn accordance with § 192.481 and its own procedures, NGTSC should have identified in its\nprocedures that there was a need to give particular attention to facilities covered by thermal\ninsulation and should have provided guidance on how to do that.\nIn summary, the record shows that NGTSC failed, in conducting its atmospheric corrosion\nprogram, to pay particular attention to pipe under thermal insulation. This conclusion is\nsupported by the company’s failure to include in its procedures any guidance on how to identify\nthose locations where pipe under insulation might be particularly susceptible to corrosion, by the\nfact that there were no records of insulation ever having been removed during NGTSC\ninspections, and by the statements of company personnel who acknowledged that they had never\nremoved insulation at the Easton and Hellertown Compressor Stations. Accordingly, after\nconsidering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(b) by failing\nto give particular attention during atmospheric corrosion inspections to portions of the pipeline\nunder thermal insulation.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken 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. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under\n49 U.S.C. § 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 $28,700 for the violation cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $28,700 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.481(b), for failing to give particular attention during atmospheric corrosion\ninspections to portions of the pipeline under thermal insulation. As discussed above, I found that\n4 PHMSA Interp. No. PI-ZZ-092 (Feb. 14, 2003) (on file with PHMSA).\n\n\n\n4\nNGTSC failed to give particular attention during atmospheric corrosion inspections to portions\nof the pipeline under thermal insulation.\nNGTSC requested withdrawal of the civil penalty associated with Item 1, citing the $250,000\ncost it would likely incur in meeting the terms of the proposed Compliance Order. Additionally,\nNGTSC asserted that it had taken various actions to improve its corrosion control program.\nRespondent completed atmospheric corrosion on inspections on the insulated piping on\nSeptember 28, 2011, at Hellertown and on December 13, 2011, at Easton.\nWhile I acknowledge the value of these various actions taken by NGTSC, the fact remains that\nmost of them were performed after the inspection and were ones that any reasonable and prudent\noperator might take following an inspection to ensure compliance and to protect against\natmospheric corrosion. I also find that the actions taken do not cure the violation itself or\nwarrant a reduction in the civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered\nthe assessment criteria for the Item cited above, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $28,700\nfor violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.481(b).\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.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\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 $28,700 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 district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.481(b). 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 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(b) (Item 1), NGTSC provided an\namended procedure titled 70.001.001 Inspection – Atmospheric Corrosion.\nHowever, I find that compliance has not been achieved with respect to this violation. The\namended procedure submitted by NGTSC remains inadequate because it provides no guidance as\n\n\n\n5\nto how company personnel should identify those areas where corrosion is likely to occur.\nTherefore, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217,\nRespondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety\nregulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.481 (Item 1), Respondent must:\na. b. c. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice, pertaining to atmospheric\ncorrosion on piping under thermal insulation, NGTSC shall modify its\nwritten Procedure 70.001.001, Inspection – Atmospheric Corrosion,\nSection 2.5, to provide specific details on how it will give particular\nattention to monitoring atmospheric corrosion on piping under thermal\ninsulation. The revised procedure shall provide guidance to its staff in\nidentifying where atmospheric corrosion is more likely to occur.\nSubsequently, NGTSC must identify those locations at Easton and\nHellertown Compressor Stations. The revised procedures must be\nsubmitted to PHMSA for review.\nThe revised written procedures shall be completed within 30 days of\nreceipt of the Final Order. NGTSC shall provide documentation to\ndemonstrate that the appropriate inspections have been completed in\naccordance with the revised written procedure within 120 days of receipt\nof the Final Order.\nIt is requested that NGTSC maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and\nsubmit the total to Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these\ncosts be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and 2)\ntotal cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to\npipeline infrastructure.\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 the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to 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.\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\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\n\n\n\n6\nany civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all\nother 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","truncated":false,"body_characters":18873}