COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

case documentOfficial PDF120131003_NOPV_PCP_04052013_text.pdf#

party submissionOfficial PDF120131003_Operator Response_05222013.pdf#

120131003_Closure Letter_12032013_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFU.S. Department Of Transportation Pipeline and 609.989.2171 Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103 West Trenton, NJ 08628 OVERNIGHT EXPRESS MAIL December 3, 2013 Shawn L. Patterson President, Engineering & Project Development Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation 1700 MacCorkle Avenue SE Charleston, WV 25314 CPF 1-2013-1003 Dear Mr. Patterson: On November 14, 2013, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued to Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, a Final Order for case 1-2013-1003. This Order included a Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the documentation you provided, and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order. Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Byron Coy, PE Director, Eastern Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Cc: WV PSC: David Hippchen#

120131003_Final Order_11142013_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFNOVEMBER 14, 2013 Mr. Shawn L. Patterson President Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE Charleston, WV 25314 Re: CPF No. 1-2013-1003 Dear Mr. Patterson: Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $29,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Jeffrey D. Wiese Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Byron Coy, PE, Eastern Region Director, OPS Perry M. Hoffman, Manager – System Integrity, NiSource Gas Transmission & Storage 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE, Charleston, WV 25314 CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED#

120131003_Final Order_11142013_text.pdf, page 2U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 __________________________________________ In the Matter of ) Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, ) CPF No. 1-2013-1003 ) ) ) Respondent. ) __________________________________________) FINAL ORDER Between October 19, 2010 and June 3, 2011, representatives from the West Virginia Public Service Commission, acting as agents for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (CGT or Respondent), located in Charleston, West Virginia. CGT transports an average of 3 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day through a nearly 12,000- mile pipeline network and 92 compressor stations in 10 states, serving hundreds of communities. Its customers include local gas distribution companies, energy marketers, electric power generating facilities and hundreds of industrial and commercial end users. 1 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated April 5, 2013, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice), which also included two warnings pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that CGT had violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $29,000 for the alleged violation. The warning items required no further action, but warned the operator to correct the probable violation. CGT responded to the Notice by letter dated May 22, 2013, (Response). The company did not contest the allegations of violation. 1 See http://www.columbiapipelinegroup.com/en/about-us/our-companies.aspx#columbiagastransmission, last visited on September 23, 2013.#

120131003_Final Order_11142013_text.pdf, page 32 FINDING OF VIOLATION In its Response, CGT, did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows: Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b), which states in relevant part: § 192.705(b) Transmission lines: Patrolling. (a) … (b) The frequency of patrols is determined by the size of the line, the operating pressures, the class location, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors, but intervals between patrols may not be longer than prescribed in the following table: Maximum interval between patrols Class Location of line At highway and railroad crossings At all other places 1,2………………… 7 ½ months; but at least twice each calendar year. 15 months; but at least once each calendar year. 3…………………... 4 ½ months; but at least four times each calendar year. 7 ½ months; but at least twice each calendar year. 4…………………,, 4 ½ months; but at least four times each calendar year. 4 ½ months; but at least four times each calendar year. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b) by failing to timely patrol certain areas along its “HB” pipeline. Specifically, the Notice alleged that in 2009, CGT failed to patrol sixteen (16) specified segments of its pipeline in Class 1 or 2 locations, at highway and railroad crossings, within 7 ½ months but at least twice each calendar year. CGT’s records indicate that its patrol of the sixteen (16) pipeline segments was conducted on November 9, 2009, making it 15 days late. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b) by failing to patrol sixteen segments of its pipeline located in Class 1 or Class 2 locations within the 7 ½-month time limit. This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent.#

120131003_Final Order_11142013_text.pdf, page 43 ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s ability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $29,000 for the violation cited above. Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $29,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b), for failing to patrol sixteen (16) segments of its pipeline in a Class 1 or 2 area within 7 ½ months. CGT neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. With respect to the nature, circumstances, and gravity of this violation, monitoring the conditions along the route of a gas pipeline is a key part of pipeline safety and the failure to do so within the prescribed interval warrants the issuance of a penalty. CGT provided no basis for its failure to comply with its inspection requirements. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $29,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.705. Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893. Failure to pay the $29,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district court of the United States. WARNING ITEMS With respect to Items 2 and 3, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to be warning items. The warnings were for:#

120131003_Final Order_11142013_text.pdf, page 54 49 C.F.R. § 192.751 (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to properly plug two (2) switch box enclosures, where gas could collect and serve as a possible source of ignition; and 49 C.F.R. § 192.605 (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to properly provide identification tags on Pipeline P at the Wilson gas delivery point in violation of its O&M Procedure 200.01.02, Section 3.4. CGT presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to address the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. ___________________________________ __________________________ Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#