{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120151008","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":"2015-04-27","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.455(a), 192.605(b)(2).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120151008.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120151008.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120151008","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120151008","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.455(a),  192.605(b)(2). The case was opened on 2015-04-27 and is reported as closed as of 2016-02-25. Proposed civil penalty: $61,900. Assessed civil penalty: $61,900. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120151008_Final Order_02052016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151008/120151008_Final%20Order_02052016.pdf\n\n120151008_Final Order_02052016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151008/120151008_Final%20Order_02052016_text.pdf\n\n120151008_NOPV PCP PCO_04272015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151008/120151008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04272015.pdf\n\n120151008_NOPV PCP PCO_04272015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151008/120151008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04272015_text.pdf\n\n120151008_Operator Response to Notice_05262015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120151008/120151008_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_05262015.pdf\n\n120151008_Final Order_02052016_text.pdf\n\nFebruary 05, 2016\nMr. Robert C. Skaggs, Jr., CEO\nColumbia Gas Transmission, LLC\nColumbia Pipeline Group\n5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500\nHouston, Texas 77056\nRe: CPF No. 1-2015-1008\nDear Mr. Skaggs:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary,\nColumbia Gas Transmission, LLC. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of\n$61,900. It further finds that Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC has completed the actions\nspecified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the civil penalty\nhas been paid, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this enforcement action will be\nclosed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing,\nor 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: Mr. Byron Coy, P.E., Director, Eastern Region, PHMSA OPS\nMr. Perry Hoffman, Manager - System Integrity, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC\n1700 MacCorkle Ave., SE, Charleston, West Virginia 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 )\nColumbia Gas Transmission, LLC, )\na subsidiary of Columbia Pipeline Group, ) CPF No. 1-2015-1008\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n__________________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn multiple occasions between June 24, 2014, and August 8, 2014, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of\nthe facilities and records of Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia or Respondent), at its\nMillennium Pipeline facilities in Sparrow Bush, New York. Columbia transports natural gas\nthrough nearly 12,000 miles of pipelines in the northeastern United States.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated April 27, 2015, 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 Columbia had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.455 and 192.605 and proposed\nassessing a civil penalty of $61,900 for one of the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed\nordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nColumbia responded to the Notice by letter dated May 26, 2015 (Response).2 The company did\nnot contest the allegations of violation but provided information concerning the corrective\nactions it had taken. Columbia also provided a second response by letter dated August 24, 2015\n(Response 2) where it updated the Region on the actions it had taken in response to the Notice.\nRespondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\n1 See https://www.cpg.com/about-us. At the time this case arose, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, was part of\nColumbia Pipeline Group, a subsidiary of NiSource, Inc. In July 2015, NiSource separated Columbia Pipeline\nGroup into a stand-alone publicly traded company. See https://www.nisource.com/about-us/creating-two-energy-\ninfrastructure-companies (last accessed October 16, 2015).\n2 By letter dated August 24, 2015, Columbia provided PHMSA with additional information on actions it had taken\nin response to the Notice.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2015-1008\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Columbia did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.455(a), which states, in\nrelevant part:\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) by failing to establish a\ncathodic protection system designed to protect a new buried pipeline within one year after the\npipeline is placed into operation. Specifically, the Notice alleged that approximately 1,500 feet\nof large-diameter piping was newly installed for the Minisink compressor station on\nRespondent’s Millennium Pipeline in Orange County, New York. The station was placed into\noperation on June 1, 2013, and during inspections on June 24-25, 2014, inspectors found\ninadequate cathodic protection for the new pipeline. When asked how they provided cathodic\nprotection for the new pipeline, Columbia’s operations manager indicated that the company had\nbonded the new piping to existing cathodic protection systems but planned to eventually provide\nseparate cathodic protection at the station.\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) by failing to establish a\ncathodic protection system designed to protect a new buried pipeline system within one year of\nthe pipeline being placed into operation.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(b)(2), which states:\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following, if\napplicable, to provide safety during maintenance and operations.\n(1) …\n(2) Controlling corrosion in accordance with the operations and\nmaintenance requirements of subpart I of this part.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(b)(2) by failing to prepare and\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2015-1008\nPage 3\nfollow for each pipeline a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and\nmaintenance activities and for emergency response. This includes procedures for controlling\ncorrosion in accordance with the requirements of subpart I of 49 C.F.R. Part 192. Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that Columbia’s Procedure 70.01.0, External Corrosion Control, Section\n3.2.1, failed to require adequate external corrosion control for all buried or submerged pipe\ninstalled after July 31, 1971, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 192.455(a)(2), which is part of\nsubpart I of 49 C.F.R. Part 192. Instead, Columbia’s procedure only required external corrosion\ncontrol for pipe “installed as a replacement section for a pipeline,” not for newly-installed pipe.\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. § 192.605(b)(2) by failing to prepare\nand follow for each pipeline a manual of written procedures for external corrosion control that\nmet the requirements of subpart I of 49 C.F.R. Part 192.\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$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122\nand 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and\ngravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of\nRespondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect that the\npenalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent in\nattempting 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 civil penalty of\n$61,900 for one of the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $61,900 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.455(a), for failing to establish a cathodic protection system designed to protect a new\nburied pipeline within one year after the pipeline is placed into operation. Columbia neither\ncontested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the\nproposed penalty. Considering the importance of adequate cathodic protection and the fact that\nthis is a repeat offense,3 I find that the penalty amount is justified. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$61,900 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.455(a).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of Item\ncited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $61,900.\n3 In the Matter of NiSource Gas Transmissions and Storage Company, CPF 1-2012-1014 (Dec. 21, 2012), Item 2.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2015-1008\nPage 4\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 (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $61,900 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 Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.455, 192.605, respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each\nperson who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is\nrequired to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The\nDirector has indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions to address some of the\ncited violations:\nColumbia included cathodic protection test station readings and a map of test station\nlocations in Attachments A and B of its response, related to Notice Item 1 and Proposed\nCompliance Order Item 1. PHMSA Eastern Region has reviewed the August 24, 2015\nresponse and the additional cathodic protection actions Columbia has taken, and it\nappears the additional cathodic protection actions taken satisfied the requirements of\nProposed Compliance Order Item 1.\nColumbia included revised operations and maintenance (O&M) procedures in\nAttachment A of its Response related to Notice Item 2 and Proposed Compliance\nOrder Item 2. PHMSA Eastern Region has reviewed those revised procedures, and it\nappears the revised procedures satisfy the requirements of Proposed Compliance Order\nItem 2.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations.\nTherefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Item 1 and Item 2 are not included in\nthis Order.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Columbia maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total\nto Mr. Byron Coy, PE, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2015-1008\nPage 5\nIt is requested that these costs be reported in two categories:\n1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and\nanalyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to\npipeline infrastructure.\nThe 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\n120151008_NOPV PCP PCO_04272015_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\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY\nApril 27, 2015\nKen Oostman, VP Engineering\nColumbia Gas Transmission, LLC.\n5151 San Felipe, No. 2500\nHouston, TX, 77056\nCPF 1-2015-1008\nDear Mr. Oostman:\nBetween June 24 and August 8, 2014, representatives of the New York State Department of Public\nService (NYDPS), acting as agents for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected Columbia Gas Transmission,\nLLC (CGT), Millennium pipeline facilities, in Sparrow Bush, New York.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety\nRegulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violations are:\n1. §192.455 External corrosion control: Buried or submerged pipelines installed after July\n31, 1971.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (f) of this section, each buried or\nsubmerged pipeline installed after July 31, 1971, must be protected against external\ncorrosion, including the following:\n(2) It must have a cathodic protection system designed to protect the pipeline in accordance\nwith this subpart, installed and placed in operation within 1 year after completion of\nconstruction.\nCGT failed to establish a cathodic protection system designed to protect a new buried pipeline within one\nyear after the pipeline had been placed into operation.\n1. During the first half of 2013, approximately 1,500 feet of large diameter (combination of 36-inch,\n30-inch, and 24-inch) piping was newly installed for the Millennium Pipeline Company\n(Millennium) Minisink compressor station in Westtown, Orange County, NY.\n\n\n\n1-2015-1008\n2. 3. 4. The compressor station was placed into operation by CGT on June 1, 2013.\nDuring the inspection on 6/24/2014, NYSDPS requested that CGT take cathodic protection (CP)\npipe-to-soil potential readings at the Minisink compressor station piping. CGT took the CP\nreadings after the NYSDPS inspection, with no NYSDPS inspector present. Of the three readings\ntaken at the compressor station, NYSDPS noted one less than adequate pipe-to-soil potential\nreading of -0.750 volts. On 6/25/2014, CGT found four additional pipe-to-soil potential readings\nbelow the -0.85 Volt cathodic protection criteria. CGT did not provide any evidence that\ncathodic protection was being deemed adequate by any other criteria.\nNYSDPS asked CGT how they provided cathodic protection to the new piping. CGT indicated\nthat they bonded the new station piping to the existing cathodic protection system on the\nMillennium mainline, and installed bonds across insulating joints on the inlet and outlet piping to\nthe compressor station. The Operations Manager for CGT, stated that CGT intends to install a\nseparate cathodic protection system at the station, but it has not yet been installed.\nThus, CGT failed to establish a cathodic protection system designed to protect a new buried pipeline\nwithin one year after the pipeline had been placed into operation.\nThis probable violation is a repeat violation of CPF 1-2012-2014 Item 2.\n2. §192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of this\nsection must include procedures for the following, if applicable, to provide safety during\nmaintenance and operations.\n(2) Controlling corrosion in accordance with the operations and maintenance requirements\nof subpart I of this part.\nCGT Procedure 70.01.01 “External Corrosion Control” is inadequate in that it does not address all of the\nrequirements of §192.455(a)(2) which states in part that “…each buried or submerged pipeline installed\nafter July 31, 1971, must be protected against external corrosion…”\nCGT’s procedure (Section 3.2.1) refers only to pipe “installed as a replacement section for a pipeline” and\ndoes not refer to newly installed pipe.\nIn an e-mail from CGT to the NYSDPS dated August 8, 2014, CGT indicated that they are in the process\nof revising the language of their O&M Plan 70.01.01 “to ensure it is clear that all buried or submerged\nmetallic piping installed (or replaced) after July 31, 1971 must have a cathodic protection system\ndesigned to protect the pipeline installed (or replaced) which is placed in operation within 1 year after the\ncompletion of construction.”\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per\nviolation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of violations.\nFor violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per\nviolation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations.\nThe Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the\nabove probable violations and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of\n$61,900 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $61,900\n120151008_NOPV_PCP_PCO_04272015 2 of 4\n\n\n\n1-2015-1008\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 1 and 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to CGT. Please refer to the\nProposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nCompliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All material you\nsubmit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you believe that any\nportion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with\nthe complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you\nbelieve qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted\ninformation qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30\ndays of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this\nNotice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nPlease submit all correspondence in this matter to Byron Coy, PE, Director, PHMSA Eastern Region, 820\nBear Tavern Road, Suite 103, W. Trenton, NJ 08628. Please refer to CPF 1-2015-1008 on each\ndocument you submit and please, whenever possible, provide a signed PDF copy in electronic format.\nSmaller files may be emailed to Byron.Coy@dot.gov. Larger files should be sent on a CD accompanied\nby the original paper copy to the Eastern Region Office.\nAdditionally, if you choose to respond to this (or any other case), please ensure that any response letter\npertains solely to one CPF case number.\nSincerely,\nByron Coy, PE\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nCc: Mr. Kevin Speicher, NYSDPS\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n120151008_NOPV_PCP_PCO_04272015 3 of 4\n\n\n\n1-2015-1008\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA) proposes to issue to Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (CGT) a Compliance Order\nincorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of CGT with the pipeline\nsafety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. 4. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to CGT’s failure to establish a\ncathodic protection system for the Minisink Compressor Station and associated piping\ndesigned to protect a new buried pipeline within one year after the pipeline was placed\ninto operation on June 1, 2013, CGT must evaluate, and then ensure that adequate\ncathodic protection is provided for the entirety of the Minisink Compressor Station, and\nall of its inlet and outlet piping for a distance of 5 miles from the station fence lines.\nIn regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to CGT’s Procedure 70.01.01 that\ndoes not address all the requirements of §192.455(a)(2), CGT must revise the language of\ntheir operations and maintenance (O&M) procedures to address that all buried or\nsubmerged metallic piping installed, or replaced, after July 31, 1971 must have a cathodic\nprotection system designed to protect the pipeline installed, or replaced, and in operation,\nwithin 1 year after the completion of construction.\nCGT will have 90 days after receipt of the Final Order to perform a cathodic protection\nevaluation on the subject station and inlet/outlet piping; then another 150 days to install\nor modify cathodic protection as needed, to achieve adequate cathodic protection.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that CGT maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total\nto Byron Coy, PE, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost\nassociated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2)\ntotal cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline\ninfrastructure.\n120151008_NOPV_PCP_PCO_04272015 4 of 4","truncated":false,"body_characters":23801}