{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220071014","title":"INDIANA GAS CO INC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2007-07-31","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.903, 192.907(a), 192.911(a), 192.917(a), 192.917(b), 192.917(c), 192.919, 192.935(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220071014.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220071014.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220071014","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220071014","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving INDIANA GAS CO INC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.903,  192.907(a),  192.911(a),  192.917(a),  192.917(b),  192.917(c),  192.919,  192.935(a). The case was opened on 2007-07-31 and is reported as closed as of 2010-11-22. Proposed civil penalty: $51,000. Assessed civil penalty: $51,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220071014_closure letter_11222010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220071014/220071014_closure%20letter_11222010.pdf\n\n220071014_closure letter_11222010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220071014/220071014_closure%20letter_11222010_text.pdf\n\n220071014_FinalOrder_07152010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220071014/220071014_FinalOrder_07152010.pdf\n\n220071014_FinalOrder_07152010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220071014/220071014_FinalOrder_07152010_text.pdf\n\n220071014_nopv letter_07312007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220071014/220071014_nopv%20letter_07312007.pdf\n\n220071014_Operator Response_10172007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220071014/220071014_Operator%20Response_10172007.pdf\n\n220071014_FinalOrder_07152010_text.pdf\n\nJUL 15 2010\nMr. Carl L. Chapman\nPresident\nVectren Corporation\nP.O. Box 209\nEvansville, IN 47702-0209\nRE: CPF No. 2-2007-1014\nDear Mr. Chapman:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $51,000, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nVectren Corporation to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms\nare set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the\ncompliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southern Region, this enforcement\naction will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the\ndate of mailing, 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: Mr. Rick J. Schach, Vice-President, VUHI – Energy Delivery, Vectren Corp.\nMs. Annemarie Robertson, Vectren Energy Delivery, Director of Pipeline Safety\nMr. Chuck Kanoy, Vectren Energy Delivery, Gas Transmission Assets\nMr. Wayne Lemoi, Director, Southern Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0039 0591]\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 )\nVectren Corporation, ) CPF No. 2-2007-1014\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n_________________________________________ )\nFINAL ORDER\nOn May 1-4 and May 15-18, 2006, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), the\nOhio Public Utility Commission, and the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, conducted an\non-site pipeline safety inspection of Vectren Corporation’s (Vectren or Respondent) gas integrity\nmanagement program (IMP) in Evansville, Indiana. Vectren is a diversified energy holding\ncompany headquartered in Evansville, Indiana, delivers gas and electricity to more than one\nmillion utility customers in Ohio and Indiana, and operates approximately 931 miles of gas\ntransmission pipelines.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated July 31, 2007, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that Respondent had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192\nand proposed assessing a civil penalty of $51,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The\nNotice further proposed finding that Vectren had committed certain other probable violations of\n49 C.F.R. Part 192 and warning the company to take appropriate corrective action or be subject\nto future enforcement action.\n1 Vectren’s wholly owned subsidiary, Vectren Utility Holdings, Inc., serves as the intermediate holding company\nfor three operating utilities: Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana – North (Vectren North), Vectren Energy Delivery\nof Indiana – South (Vectren South) and Vectren Energy Delivery of Ohio (VEDO).\n(http://www.vectren.com/web/index.jsp.)\n\n\n\n2\nRespondent requested and received an extension of time to seek clarification and respond to the\nNotice. Respondent responded timely to the Notice by letter dated October 17, 2007 (Response).\nRespondent did not contest the allegations of violation and expressed its intent to comply with\nthe proposed corrective actions upon receipt of a final order. Respondent did not request a\nhearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nRespondent did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as\nfollows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.907(a) and (b), which state:\n§ 192.907 What must an operator do to implement this subpart?\n(a) General. No later than December 17, 2004, an operator of a covered\npipeline segment must develop and follow a written integrity management\nprogram that contains all the elements described in § 192.911 and that\naddresses the risks on each covered transmission pipeline segment. The initial\nintegrity management program must consist, at a minimum, of a framework\nthat describes the process for implementing each program element, how\nrelevant decisions will be made and by whom, a time line for completing the\nwork to implement the program element, and how information gained from\nexperience will be continuously incorporated into the program. The framework\nwill evolve into a more detailed and comprehensive program. An operator\nmust make continual improvements to the program.\n(b) Implementation Standards. In carrying out this subpart, an operator\nmust follow the requirements of this subpart and of ASME/ANSI B31.8S (ibr,\nsee § 192.7) and its appendices, where specified. An operator may follow an\nequivalent standard or practice only when the operator demonstrates the\nalternative standard or practice provides an equivalent level of safety to the\npublic and property. In the event of a conflict between this subpart and\nASME/ANSI B31.8S, the requirements in this subpart control.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.907(a) and (b) by failing to follow\nits own written IMP procedures and the requirements of ASME/ANSI B31.8S and its\nappendices. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Vectren failed to:\n• Collect, integrate, and analyze the data required by its own procedure, IMP4-001,\nPipeline Integrity Data Management;\n• Identify and include consequence factors in its risk assessment process, as required by\nits own procedure, IMP-6-003, and treated consequences uniformly;\n• Perform annual updates or incorporate changes to its Baseline Assessment\nPlan(BAP), as required by its own procedure, IMP-6-005, or to keep the BAP up-to-\ndate;\n\n\n\n3\n• Follow the requirements in the External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) NACE\nRP 0502 standard or follow its own ECDA procedure, IMP-6-014, by performing an\nacceptable ECDA feasibility study, specifying critical data collection and data\nintegration requirements, identifying ECDA regions, or performing the post-\nassessment step in the ECDA process;\n• Implement its own process for data integration for identifying third-party damage\nthreats;\n• Implement comprehensive additional preventive measures or perform an analysis to\ndetermine if automatic shut-off valves or remote control valves were needed for any\nHigh Consequence Area (HCA) segments, as required by its own procedure, IMP-6-\n007; or\n• Perform annual audits of its IMP program and processes, as required by its own\nprocedure, IMP-10-002.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I\nfind that Vectren violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.907(a) and (b) by failing to follow its own written\nIMP procedures and the requirements of this subpart, ASME/ANSI B31.8S, and its appendices,\nall as more fully set forth in the Notice.\nItem 2B: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.903, which states:\n§ 192.903 What definitions apply to this subpart?\nThe following definitions apply to this subpart: . . .\nPotential impact radius (PIR) means the radius of a circle within\nwhich the potential failure of a pipeline could have significant impact on\npeople or property. PIR is determined by the formula r = 0.69* (square root\nof (p*d 2)0.5), where >r= is the radius of a circular area in feet surrounding\nthe point of failure, ‘p’ is the maximum allowable operating pressure\n(MAOP) in the pipeline segment in pounds per square inch and ‘d’ is the\nnominal diameter of the pipeline in inches.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to ensure that accurate maximum allowable operating\npressures (MAOPs) were used to determine the potential impact radius (PIR), as defined in 49\nC.F.R. § 192.903. MAOPs are used to identify the extent of covered HCA pipelines segments\nwhose integrity need to be assessed. The Notice further alleged that certain risk-ranking\ndocuments were missing MAOP data points. Respondent did not contest this allegation of\nviolation in its Response. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.903 by failing to ensure that accurate MAOPs were used to\ndetermine the PIR, as defined in such regulation, and by failing to include all MAOP data points\nin its risk-ranking documents.\nItem 3B: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b), which states:\n\n\n\n4\n§ 192.917 How does an operator identify potential threats to pipeline\nintegrity and use the threat identification in its integrity\nprogram?\n(a) . . .\n(b) Data gathering and integration. To identify and evaluate the\npotential threats to a covered pipeline segment, an operator must gather and\nintegrate existing data and information on the entire pipeline that could be\nrelevant to the covered segment. In performing this data gathering and\nintegration, an operator must follow the requirements in ASME/ANSI B31.8S,\nsection 4. At a minimum, an operator must gather and evaluate the set of data\nspecified in Appendix A to ASME/ANSI B31.8S, and consider both on the\ncovered segment and similar non-covered segments, past incident history,\ncorrosion control records, continuing surveillance records, patrolling records,\nmaintenance history, internal inspection records and all other conditions\nspecific to each pipeline.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b) by failing to gather and\nintegrate existing data and information on its pipelines that were needed to implement Vectren’s\nIMP, as required by its own procedure, IMP - 4-001. As a result, Respondent compromised its\ndata integration process, which affected its threat and risk analyses and the accuracy of the\npriorities contained within its BAP. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Vectren failed to\ninclude: (1) a comprehensive plan for collecting, reviewing and analyzing pipeline data or a\nchecklist of data sources to ensure a complete data retrieval process; (2) details on how it\nintended to continually upgrade the quality and quantity of the data used in its risk analysis\nprocess; and (3) a data collection and integration plan that described how data would be collected\nduring bell-hole openings that resulted from the assessment process or maintenance activities and\nthat described how the data would be received by the IM project and then validated and\nintegrated with other data, entered into the pipeline database, and factored into risk analysis\nupdates.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, after considering all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917 (b) by failing to gather and\nintegrate existing data and information on its pipelines that were needed to implement the\ncompany’s IMP.\nItem 3C: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b), as quoted above,\nby failing to gather and integrate data in accordance with the requirements of ASME/ANSI\nB31.8S, section 4. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent identified a substantial\namount of data as “unknown,” which could cause inappropriate risk assessments. For example,\nRespondent’s VEDI-N line, installed in 1987, had a large amount of “unknowns” for a relatively\nnew pipeline. The substantial amount of missing or unknown data and the unconfirmed\nconservatism of assumptions used to compensate for this missing/unknown data limited\nVectren’s ability to perform a valid and substantiated risk-ranking of HCAs for use in generating\na BAP.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, after considering all of the\n\n\n\n5\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(b) by failing to gather and\nintegrate data in accordance with the requirements of ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 4.\nItem 4A: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.919 (a-d), which states:\n§ 192.919 What must be in the baseline assessment plan?\nAn operator must include each of the following elements in its written\nbaseline assessment plan:\n(a) Identification of the potential threats to each covered pipeline\nsegment and the information supporting the threat identification. (See\n§ 192.917.);\n(b) The methods selected to assess the integrity of the line pipe,\nincluding an explanation of why the assessment method was selected to\naddress the identified threats to each covered segment. The integrity\nassessment method an operator uses must be based on the threats identified to\nthe covered segment. (See § 192.917.) More than one method may be\nrequired to address all the threats to the covered pipeline segment;\n(c) A schedule for completing the integrity assessment of all covered\nsegments, including risk factors considered in establishing the assessment\nschedule;\n(d) If applicable, a direct assessment plan that meets the requirements of\n§ 192.923, and depending on the threat to be addressed, of §192.925,\n§ 192.927, or § 192.929.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.919(a-d) by failing to generate a\nvalid risk-ranked BAP under § 192.917, by the required date of December 17, 2004, or to use a\nvalid risk-ranked BAP in scheduling pipeline assessments. The Notice further alleged that not\nall identified HCAs were included in the original BAP and that Vectren treated consequences\nuniformly, such that it did not consider all applicable risk factors in the prioritization of its\nassessment schedule. It alleged that Vectren had determined its risk-ranked BAP to be invalid in\nlate 2005, yet did not include all segments and was still working on developing a comprehensive\nrisk-based BAP at the time of the PHMSA inspection.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, after considering all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.919(a-d) by failing to generate a valid\nrisk-ranked BAP under § 192.917 or to develop a valid risk-ranked schedule for assessments.\nItem 5A: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.935 (a), which states:\n§ 192.935 What additional preventive and mitigative (P&M)\nmeasures must an operator take?\n(a) General requirements. An operator must take additional measures\nbeyond those already required by Part 192 to prevent a pipeline failure and\nto mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure in a high consequence\narea. An operator must base the additional measures on the threats the\noperator has identified to each pipeline segment. (See § 192.917) An\noperator must conduct, in accordance with one of the risk assessment\napproaches in ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see\n\n\n\n6\n§ 192.7), section 5, a risk analysis of its pipeline to identify additional\nmeasures to protect the high consequence area and enhance public safety.\nSuch additional measures include, but are not limited to, installing\nAutomatic Shut-off Valves or Remote Control Valves, installing\ncomputerized monitoring and leak detection systems, replacing pipe\nsegments with pipe of heavier wall thickness, providing additional training\nto personnel on response procedures, conducting drills with local\nemergency responders and implementing additional inspection and\nmaintenance programs.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.935(a) by failing to take additional\nmeasures, beyond those already required by Part 192, to prevent a pipeline failure and to mitigate\nthe consequences of failures in HCAs. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Vectren's IMP\nprocedure, IMP-6-007, identified possible preventive and mitigative (P&M) measures but that\nthe company had failed to perform any specific evaluations of its pipelines or to identify which\nmeasures were appropriate for specific covered HCA segments. The Notice further alleged that\nRespondent had failed to implement a data integration process to identify third-party damage\nthreats and to implement appropriate P&M measures to address such threats.\nAlthough Vectren had implemented certain P&M measures, none resulted from a risk analysis\nfor specific HCA segments. The company failed to identify HCA-specific risk drivers that\nexisted for each HCA. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 192.935(a) by failing to take additional measures, beyond those already\nrequired by Part 192, to prevent a pipeline failure and to mitigate the consequences of failures in\nHCAs.\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 a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of\nviolations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and\n49 C.F.R. § 190.225 I must consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of\nthe violation, including adverse impact on the environment; degree of Respondent's culpability,\nthe history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to pay the penalty, and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider\nthe economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a $51,000 civil\npenalty for violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192.\nItem 1 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $20,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.907(a) and (b), for Respondent’s failure to follow its own written IMP procedures.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation. Respondent’s failure to follow its own IMP\nprocedures for maintaining the integrity of the pipeline increased the risk of harm to public\n\n\n\n7\nsafety and the environment. Respondent has not shown any circumstances that would have\nprevented it from following its own IMP procedures or justified its failure to do so. Accordingly,\nhaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil\npenalty of $20,000, for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.907(a) and (b).\nItem 4A of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $31,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.919(a-d), for Respondent’s failure to develop a risk-ranked BAP by the regulatory\ndeadline of December 17, 2004, and to use such a BAP in scheduling pipeline assessments.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation. It is essential that an operator’s risk assessment\napproach clearly identify the major threats to HCAs for a given pipeline segment or facility,\nidentify how those threats rank in relation to each other, and how the segments and facilities\ncompare to each other based on the risk to HCAs. An operator’s failure to sufficiently document\nits risk analysis process and to analyze the potential effects of pipeline failures on HCAs at\nspecific locations along the pipeline leaves it ill-prepared to address the severity and extent of the\nconsequences that ensue following a failure. A release or failure under such circumstances\nincreases the risk of harm to the public and the environment. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $31,000, for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.919 (a-d).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for the violations\ndiscussed above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $51,000. A determination has been\nmade that Respondent has the ability to pay this penalty without adversely affecting its ability to\ncontinue in business.\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 this payment 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 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125. The Financial\nOperations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893. Failure to pay the $51,000 civil\npenalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. §\n3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty\ncharge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not made within 110 days of\nservice. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the\nAttorney General for appropriate action in a district court of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a Compliance Order with regard to Items 1, 2B, 3B, 3C, 4A and 5A in the\nNotice for various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person\nwho engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required\nto comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the\nauthority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the\nfollowing actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its\noperations:\n\n\n\n8\n1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice, pertaining to developing and following a\nwritten IMP and detailed procedures, Vectren must develop specific details of the actions and\nactivities to be accomplished throughout its IMP and implement the requirements in its\nprocedures, including the following actions to:\na. Collect, integrate and analyze the data required to implement an IMP, as set forth\nin IMP 4-001, Section 6, of Vectren’s IM Plan;\nb. Identify and include consequence factors in its risk assessment process, as set\nforth in IMP 6-003;\nc. Perform annual updates and incorporate changes to Vectren’s BAP and maintain\nthe BAP up-to-date, as set forth in IMP 6-005;\nd. Follow the requirements in the ECDA NACE RP 0502-2002 standard and IMP 6-\n014, including:\ni) Performing an acceptable ECDA feasibility study\nii) Specifying critical data collection and data integration requirements\niii) Identifying ECDA regions\niv) Performing the post-assessment step of the ECDA process;\ne. Develop and improve its integration of data arising from all sources, including\nassessments, encroachments or foreign line crossings, and to implement its\nprocess for data integration to identify third-party damage threats;\nf. Implement comprehensive additional preventive measures and perform an\nanalysis to determine if automatic shut-off valves or remote control valves are\nneeded for any HCA segments, as set forth in IMP 6-007; and\ng. Perform annual audits of its IMP and processes, as set forth in IMP 10-001 and\nIMP 10-002.\nRespondent must evaluate the need to re-perform its previously conducted indirect examinations\nand provide a plan of action or justification if evaluation determines that performing such\nindirect examinations again is not required.\n2. In regard to Item Number 2B of the Notice, pertaining to the use of valid MAOPs in\ndetermining potential impact radii and identifying identified sites and HCAs, Vectren must\nconfirm valid MAOPs and ensure that all MAOPs are accurate for all HCA pipeline segments.\nVectren must also ensure accurate MAOPs are used to determine the potential impact radii and\nverify the accuracy of its list of covered HCA pipeline segments whose integrity is being\nassessed.\n3. In regard to Item Number 3B of the Notice, pertaining to identification, gathering and\nintegration of data, Vectren must:\na. Gather and integrate existing data and information on its pipelines that are needed\n\n\n\n9\nto implement its IMP;\nb. Develop and implement a process for the integration of information on\nencroachments and foreign line crossings for evaluating the threat of third-party\ndamage;\nc. Implement a comprehensive data integration process for collecting, reviewing and\nanalyzing pipeline data to ensure accurate\ni) Threat assessment;\nii) Risk analyses; and\niii) Assessment priorities contained within its BAP;\nd. Ensure that it continually upgrades the quality and quantity of data entered into\nthe pipeline database and used in the risk analysis process;\ne. Describe how its data collection and integration plan collects data during bell-hole\nopenings, how such data are received by the IM project, how they are validated\nand integrated with other data, how they are entered into the pipeline database,\nand how they are factored into the company’s risk analysis updates.\n4. In regard to Item Number 3C of the Notice, pertaining to the substantial amount of\ndata identified as missing or unknown, Vectren must:\na. Obtain missing or unknown data and confirm or validate assumed or unverified\ndata to ensure valid risk assessments;\nb. Identify all unknown data and provide a plan of action to reduce unknowns; and\nc. Identify and implement a viable data integration process which supports its risk\nanalysis process, BAP, and preventive and mitigative measures evaluation plan.\n5. In regard to Item Number 4A of the Notice, pertaining to generating a valid risk-\nranked BAP to use in scheduling pipeline assessments, Vectren must:\na. Ensure that it implements a valid and comprehensive threat evaluation and a\ncurrent risk analysis;\nb. Develop a comprehensive, valid risk-ranked BAP to schedule and accomplish its\npipeline assessments; and\nc. Ensure that (1) all identified HCAs are included in the BAP; (2) consequences are\ndefined and applied; (3) ECDA assessments are completed and properly\naccounted for; and (4) assessments are properly managed and tracked in the BAP.\n6. In regard to Item Number 5A of the Notice, pertaining to developing and\nimplementing a valid P&M Measures Plan, Vectren must:\na. Develop and implement a risk-based P&M Measures Plan to identify additional\n\n\n\n10\nP&M measures to reduce the risk on specific HCA-covered segments;\nb. Implement a data integration process to identify third-party damage threats and\nimplement appropriate P&M measures for its affected HCAs; and\nc. Perform a risk-based evaluation for each HCA segment to determine if automatic\nshut-off valves or remote control valves are needed.\n7. Vectren must complete the above actions within 90 days of receipt of this Final Order.\n8. Vectren must maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with\nfulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Mr. Wayne Lemoi, Director, Southern\nRegion, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Costs shall be reported in two\ncategories: (1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and\nanalyses, and (2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline\ninfrastructure.\nThe Director may extend the period for complying with any of the required items upon a written\nrequest timely submitted by Respondent demonstrating good cause for an extension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not\nto 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.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 2A, 3A, 3D, and 4B, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but\ndid not propose civil penalties or a compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are\nconsidered to be warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.911(a) (Item 2A) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to document whether\nnon-pipe facilities, (e.g., regulator stations, compressor stations) had any additional\nimpact to HCAs;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.917(a) (Item 3A) – Respondent’s alleged failure to evaluate all potential\nthreats to its pipeline system, to determine whether manufacturing and construction\nthreats were unstable and in need of assessment, to identify covered segments containing\nlow-frequency electric resistance welded (ERW) or lap-welded pipe or with\nmanufacturing or construction defects, and to identify assessment methods for addressing\nsuch threats;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.192.917(b) (Item 3D) – Respondent’s alleged failure to identify and\nevaluate potential threats to its pipeline due to inadequate staffing of the IM project\nduring its development; and\n49 C.F.R. § 192.919(a-c) (Item 4B) – Respondent’s alleged failure to ensure that\nappropriate assessments were performed to address all potential threats to pipeline\n\n\n\n11\nintegrity. Vectren allegedly conducted assessments using only ECDA, which only\nassesses the threat of external corrosion.\nVectren presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited items. Accordingly, having considered such information, I find, pursuant to 49\nC.F.R. § 190.205, that probable violations of 49 C.F.R. § 192.917(a) (Notice Item 3A), 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.917(b) (Notice Item 3D), and 49 C.F.R. § 192.919(a-c) (Notice Item 4B) have occurred\nand Respondent is hereby advised to correct such conditions. In the event that OPS finds a\nviolation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future\nenforcement action.\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\n220071014_closure letter_11222010_text.pdf\n\nNovember 22, 2010\nMr. Carl L. Chapman\nPresident\nVectren Corporation\nP.O. Box 209\nEvansville, IN 47702-0209\nCPF 2-2007-1014\nDear Mr. Chapman:\nOn May 1-4, and May 15-18, 2006, a team of representatives from the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), the\nOhio Public Utility Commission, and the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, pursuant to\nChapter 601 of 49 United States Code, conducted an inspection of Vectren Corporation's\n(Vectren's) gas integrity management program (IMP) in Evansville, Indiana.\nAs a result of the inspections, PHMSA issued a Final Order on July 15, 2010. The Final\nOrder included a civil penalty of $51,000 and a Compliance Order (CO), which required\nVectren to take certain actions to protect the public and the environment.\nThe PHMSA Southern Region has confirmed Vectren's payment of the civil penalty and has\nreviewed your October 11, 2010, written response to the CO. We find that you have met the\nrequirements specified in the CO. No further action is necessary with regards to the Final\nOrder and this case is now closed.\nPlease be advised that nothing herein states or implies that the above described integrity\nmanagement program meets the requirements of the federal pipeline safety regulations or that\nthe program is approved. The pipeline system and IMP remain subject to inspection by\nPHMSA.\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region","truncated":false,"body_characters":33552}