{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120121014","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":"2012-05-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.171(d), 192.241(a)(1), 192.303, 192.305, 192.455(a)(2), 192.481(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120121014.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120121014.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120121014","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120121014","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.171(d),  192.241(a)(1),  192.303,  192.305,  192.455(a)(2),  192.481(a). The case was opened on 2012-05-21 and is reported as closed as of 2013-06-17. Proposed civil penalty: $197,900. Assessed civil penalty: $197,900. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120121014_Closure Letter_06172013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121014/120121014_Closure%20Letter_06172013.pdf\n\n120121014_Closure Letter_06172013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121014/120121014_Closure%20Letter_06172013_text.pdf\n\n120121014_Final Order_12212012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121014/120121014_Final%20Order_12212012.pdf\n\n120121014_Final Order_12212012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121014/120121014_Final%20Order_12212012_text.pdf\n\n120121014_NOPV_PCP_PCO_05212012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121014/120121014_NOPV_PCP_PCO_05212012.pdf\n\n120121014_NOPV_PCP_PCO_05212012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121014/120121014_NOPV_PCP_PCO_05212012_text.pdf\n\n120121014_Operator_Response_06222012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120121014/120121014_Operator_Response_06222012.pdf\n\n120121014_Final Order_12212012_text.pdf\n\nDECEMBER 21, 2012\nMr. Robert C. Skaggs, Jr.\nPresident & CEO\nNiSource, Inc.\n801 E. 86th Ave\nMerrillville, IN 46410\nRe: CPF No. 1-2012-1014\nDear Mr. Skaggs:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $197,900, and specifies actions that need to be taken by your\nsubsidiary, NiSource Gas Transmission & 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 completed, 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\n49 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. Jimmy D. Staton, Executive Vice President, & CEO, NiSource Gas Transmission &\nStorage Company, 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, TX 77056\nMr. Perry M. Hoffman, Manager, System Integrity, NiSource Gas Transmission &\nStorage Company, 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE, Charleston, West Virginia 25314\nMr. Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\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 )\n)\n)\nNiSource Gas Transmission & Storage Company, )\nRespondent. )\n_______________________________________________ )\n) CPF No. 1-2012-1014\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween July 12, 2008, and August 12, 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of\nthe New York Public Service Commission (NYS-DPS), 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\nCompany, a subsidiary of NiSource Gas Transmission & Storage Company (NGTSC or\nRespondent) in Binghamton, New York, and at the Port Jervis Operating Center in New York.\n1\nThe Columbia 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 21, 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 committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $197,900 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nNGTSC responded to the Notice by letter dated June 22, 2012 (Response). The company did not\ncontest the allegations of violation but provided an explanation of its actions and requested that\nthe proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing and\ntherefore has waived its right to one.\n1 NGTSC is a subsidiary of NiSource, Inc . See NiSource, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10K), at Exhibit 21 (February\n24, 2012).\n2 NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage Home Page, http://www ngts.com/en/home.aspx (last visited November\n5, 2012).\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, NGTSC did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated\n49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a), which states:\n§ 192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that\nis exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as\nfollows:\nIf the pipeline is located: Then the frequency of inspection is:\nOnshore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . At least once every 3 calendar years, but with\nintervals not exceeding 39 months.\nOffshore . . . . . . . . . . . . . At least once each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 15 months.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a) by failing to inspect each\nportion of its pipeline that was exposed to the atmosphere at least once every three calendar\nyears, but at intervals not exceeding 39 months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that NGTSC\nfailed to inspect the valve set mainline group on its Route 202/Algonquin interconnect within the\nrequired interval.\n3 During the NYS-DPS inspection, Respondent’s records allegedly showed that\natmospheric corrosion inspections on the subject valves occurred on February 13, 2007, but not\nagain until June 16, 2010, thereby exceeding the required interval by 33 days.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a) by failing to inspect each\nportion of its pipeline that was exposed to the atmosphere at least once every three calendar\nyears, but at intervals not exceeding 39 months.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.455(a)(2), which states:\n§ 192.455 External corrosion control: Buried or submerged pipelines\ninstalled after July 31, 1971.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (f) of this section,\neach buried or submerged pipeline installed after July 31, 1971, must be\nprotected against external corrosion, including the following:\n(1) …\n(2) It must have a cathodic protection system designed to protect the\npipeline in accordance with this subpart, installed and placed in operation\nwithin 1 year after completion of construction.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.455(a)(2) by failing to have a\n3 Pipeline Safety Violation Report, (Violation Report) (May 21, 2012) at 3, and Exhibit A-1.\n\n\n\n3\ncathodic protection (CP) system to protect its pipeline against external corrosion that had been\ninstalled and placed in operation within one year after completion of construction. Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that NGTSC did not complete the installation of its CP system to protect the\nentire length of its new 30-inch Millennium (East) Pipeline. It alleged that at the time of the\nNYS-DPS inspection, Respondent’s CP system had only been partially installed, with missing\ntest stations and rectifiers, and that pipe-to-soil readings on portions of the line indicated the CP\nsystem was not fully operational.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.455(a)(2) by failing to have a\nCP system to protect its pipeline that had been installed and placed in operation within one year\nafter completion of construction.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.171(d), which states:\n§ 192.171 Compressor stations: Additional safety equipment.\n(a) …\n(d) Each compressor station gas engine that operates with pressure gas\ninjection must be equipped so that stoppage of the engine automatically\nshuts off the fuel and vents the engine distribution manifold.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.171(d) by failing to equip each\ncompressor station gas engine that operates with pressure gas injection so that stoppage of the\nengine automatically shut off the fuel and vented the engine distribution manifold. Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that Respondent did not equip three temporary compressor units at its\nSparrowbush compressor station to automatically shut off the fuel to the compressor engines and\nvent the engine distribution manifold during normal engine shutdowns.4\nRespondent acknowledged that during normal shutdowns, when the fuel to the compressor unit\nengines was shut off, the compressor unit engine ignition system remained on for several\nseconds to allow the engine to burn the remaining fuel in the engine and did not vent the\ndistribution manifold.\n5\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.171(d) by failing to equip each compressor station gas engine so that the engine\nautomatically shut off the fuel and vented the engine distribution manifold. The company further\nindicated in its Response that it was reviewing its compressor engine specifications to ensure in\nthe future that when a unit stops running, the fuel would be automatically shut off and the\nmanifold automatically vented.6\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.303, which states:\n4 Violation Report at 13.\n5 Violation Report at Exhibit A-3.\n6 Response at 4.\n\n\n\n4\n§ 192.303 Compliance with specifications or standards.\nEach transmission line or main must be constructed in accordance with\ncomprehensive written specifications or standards that are consistent with\nthis part.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.303 by failing to construct its\ntransmission pipeline in accordance with comprehensive written specifications or standards\nconsistent with Part 192. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to construct its\npipeline in accordance with the company’s written specification, PLS-6.1.2, which states:\nBending procedures and equipment shall not cause damage to external\nand/or internal coatings. If, in the opinion of the Company representative,\ncoating protection is required, padded bending dies for bending machines\nshall be furnished at no additional costs.7\nThe Notice alleged that NYS-DPS inspectors had observed damaged pipe coating caused by a\nfailure to follow PLS-6.1.2 for proper bending and handling of the pipe. Inspectors\nphotographed the pipe coating damaged during the bending process at Dean Creek Road and Jay\nRumsey Road, as well as coating that had been damaged due to pipe mishandling near Parker\nRoad.8\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.303 by failing to construct its\ntransmission pipeline in accordance with comprehensive written specifications or standards\nconsistent with Part 192.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.305, which states:\n§ 192.305 Inspections: General.\nEach transmission line or main must be inspected to ensure that it is\nconstructed in accordance with this part.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.305 by failing to adequately inspect\nits pipeline to ensure that it was constructed in accordance with Part 192. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged six instances where the Respondent failed to inspect its pipeline during\nconstruction to ensure that it met the requirements for installation of pipe in a ditch, in\naccordance with § 192.319(a) and (b). During the inspection, the NYS-DPS inspectors walked\napproximately one mile of NGTSC’s 30-inch pipeline on Spread I, station 10443, and observed\ninstances of pipe coating that had been damaged when the pipe was installed in the ditch.9\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.305 by failing to adequately\n7 Violation Report, Exhibit A-4-1.\n8 Violation Report, Exhibit A-4.\n9 Violation Report at 23 and Exhibit A-5.\n\n\n\n5\ninspect its transmission pipeline to ensure that it was constructed in accordance with Part 192.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.241(a)(1) and (2), which\nstates:\n§ 192.241 Inspection and test of welds.\n(a) Visual inspection of welding must be conducted by an individual\nqualified by appropriate training and experience to ensure that:\n(1) The welding is performed in accordance with the welding\nprocedure; and\n(2) The weld is acceptable under paragraph (c) of this section.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.241(a)(1) and (2) by failing to have\nvisual welding inspections conducted by an individual qualified by appropriate training and\nexperience to ensure that the welding was performed in accordance with the welding procedure\nand was acceptable under § 192.241(c). Specifically, the Notice alleged that NGTSC did not\nhave a qualified individual visually inspect the welding for two pipeline repairs performed on\nJuly 12, 2008, for Spread I on Moss Hill, and on August 1, 2008, for Spread II weld number\nARX-482, Station 14033+03.\nRespondent did not contest these allegations of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of\nall of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.241(a)(1) and (2) by failing\nto perform visual welding inspections by an individual qualified by appropriate training and\nexperience to ensure that the weld was performed in accordance with the welding procedure and\nwas acceptable under § 192.241(c).\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. 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 $197,900 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $25,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a), for failing to inspect the valve set mainline group on the Route\n202/Algonquin interconnect for evidence of corrosion at least once every three calendar years,\n\n\n\n6\nbut at intervals not exceeding 39 months. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation\nbut explained it had revised its procedures for assigning work orders for atmospheric inspections.\nRespondent requested a reduction or elimination of the proposed penalty.\nAn adequate level of cathodic protection of buried pipelines is required to arrest corrosion and\nprevent potential failures. While it is commendable that NGTSC may have taken action in the\nwake of the inspection to reduce the risk of future violations by amending its procedures, such\nactions do not serve to mitigate the violation or justify a reduction in the proposed penalty.\nRespondent is fully culpable for this violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $25,000 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $43,100 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.455(a)(2), for failing to have a CP system that protected the entire length of its\nnew Millennium (East) Pipeline. Respondent has requested a reduction or elimination of the\nproposed penalty based upon the numerous steps it claims to have taken since installation of the\nCP system to ensure that the entire Millennium Pipeline has adequate cathodic protection. As\ndiscussed above, any actions taken by NGTSC after December 2009 to complete the CP system\nare commendable but do not cure the violation, constitute good faith efforts to avoid\nnoncompliance, or warrant a reduction in the civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $43,100 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.455(a)(2).\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $41,800 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.171(d), for failing to equip three temporary compressor units to shut off\nautomatically the fuel to the compressor engines and vent the engine distribution manifold at its\nSparrowbush compressor station. Respondent has requested a reduction or elimination of the\nproposed penalty. The company advises that its compressor engine specifications have\nundergone a review to ensure that the units automatically shut off the fuel to the compressor\nengines and vent the engine distribution manifold. As discussed above in Item 2, Respondent\nhas not presented any evidence or arguments that would justify a reduction or elimination of the\nproposed civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $41,800 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.171(d).\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $28,700 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.303, for failing to construct its pipeline in accordance with the company’s\nwritten specification, PLS-6.1.2, which states that bending procedures and equipment must not\ncause damage to external and/or internal coatings. Respondent has requested a reduction or\nelimination of the proposed penalty based on the various measures it claims to have taken to\nconfirm the integrity of its 30-inch pipeline, including addressing coating damage and anomaly\nindications.\nAs discussed above, actions taken by Respondent to achieve compliance following an inspection\ndo not serve to cure the violation, constitute good faith efforts to avoid noncompliance, or\nwarrant a reduction in the civil penalty. Respondent is fully culpable for its failure to construct\nits pipeline in accordance with the company’s own written specifications. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n\n\n\n7\n$28,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.303.\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $30,300 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.305, for failing to inspect its 30-inch pipeline during construction to ensure that\nit met the requirements of Part 192. Respondent did not contest the allegation but requested\nreduction or elimination of the proposed penalty based upon its implementation of several\ncorrective measures, including the hiring of a third party to conduct construction inspections.\nSuch actions, while commendable, do not offset the company’s failure to take effective action to\ninspect its pipeline during construction, a lapse that could have had catastrophic consequences.\nRespondent is fully culpable for the violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $30,300 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.305.\nItem 6: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $29,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.241(a)(1) and (2), for failing to have a qualified individual visually inspect the\nwelds on two pipeline repairs. As in Item 5 above, Respondent requested a reduction or\nelimination of the proposed penalty based upon its contention that it had hired a third party to\ninspect the pipeline during construction.\nSuch actions, while commendable, do not offset the company’s failure to take effective action to\ninspect pipeline repairs, a lapse that could have had catastrophic consequences. Respondent is\nfully culpable for the violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $29,000 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.241(a)(1) and (2).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $197,900.\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 $197,900 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.\n\n\n\n8\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 2 in the Notice for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.455(a)(2). 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. Pursuant to the authority of\n49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following\nactions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations.\nRespondent must take the following actions:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.455(a)(2) (Item 2), Respondent must,\nwithin 120 days of receipt of this Order, have a cathodic protection system\ndesigned, installed and placed in full operation for the entire length of the 30-inch\nMillennium (East) Pipeline.\n2. It is requested that NGTSC maintain documentation of the safety-improvement\ncosts associated with fulfilling the terms of this Compliance Order and submit the\ntotal to the Director. It is requested that costs be reported in two categories: (1)\ntotal cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies, and\nanalyses; and (2) total cost associated with replacements, additions, and other\nchanges to pipeline 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\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\n\n120121014_Closure Letter_06172013_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 MAIL\nJune 17, 2013\nShawn L. Patterson\nPresident, Engineering & Project Development\nColumbia Gas Transmission Corp.\n1700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE\nCharleston, WV 25314\nCPF 1-2012-1014\nDear Mr. Patterson:\nOn December 21, 2012, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to NiSource, Inc. a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included a\nCompliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the documentation you\nprovided, and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that you have\ncomplied 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\nCc: Kevin Speicher, NYSDPS","truncated":false,"body_characters":26743}