{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220101010S","title":"COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC — Safety Order","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2010-09-30","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED safety order.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220101010s.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220101010s.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220101010s","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220101010S","body":"Safety Order involving COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC. The dataset does not identify a cited regulation for this case. The case was opened on 2010-09-30 and is reported as closed as of 2011-12-07. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220101010S_Closure Letter_12072011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220101010S/220101010S_Closure%20Letter_12072011.pdf\n\n220101010S_Closure Letter_12072011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220101010S/220101010S_Closure%20Letter_12072011_text.pdf\n\n220101010S_Consent Agreement _06172011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220101010S/220101010S_Consent%20Agreement%20_06172011.pdf\n\n220101010S_Consent Agreement_06172011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220101010S/220101010S_Consent%20Agreement_06172011_text.pdf\n\n220101010S_Consent Order_06172011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220101010S/220101010S_Consent%20Order_06172011.pdf\n\n220101010S_Consent Order_06172011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220101010S/220101010S_Consent%20Order_06172011_text.pdf\n\n220101010S_Notice of Proposed Safety Order_09302010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220101010S/220101010S_Notice%20of%20Proposed%20Safety%20Order_09302010.pdf\n\n220101010S_Notice of Proposed Safety Order_09302010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220101010S/220101010S_Notice%20of%20Proposed%20Safety%20Order_09302010_text.pdf\n\n220101010S_operator response to NOPSO_10292010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220101010S/220101010S_operator%20response%20to%20NOPSO_10292010.pdf\n\n220101010S_Notice of Proposed Safety Order_09302010_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nSeptember 30, 2010\nVictor Gaglio\nSr. Vice President of Operations and Engineering\nColumbia Gas Transmission LLC\n1700 MacCorkle Av., SE\nCharleston, WV 25314\nCPF 2-2010-1010S\nDear Mr. Gaglio:\nEnclosed is a Notice of Proposed Safety Order (Notice) issued in the above-referenced case.\nThe Notice proposes that you take certain measures with respect to your Columbia Gas\nTransmission LLC (CGT) Line P pipeline in Kentucky and West Virginia to ensure pipeline\nsafety. Your options for responding are set forth in the Notice. Your receipt of the Notice\nconstitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R. §190.5.\nWe look forward to a successful resolution to ensure pipeline safety. Please direct any\nquestions on this matter to me at (404) 832-1160.\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Southern Region\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Notice of Proposed Safety Order and Copy of 49 CFR §190.239\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nSouthern Region\nAtlanta, GA 30303\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\n)\n)\nColumbia Gas Transmission LLC )\nRespondent )\n____________________________________)\n) CPF 2-2010-1010S\nNOTICE OF PROPOSED SAFETY ORDER\nBackground and Purpose\nPursuant to Chapter 601 of title 49, United States Code, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA) has initiated an investigation of the safety of the Columbia\nGas Transmission LLC (CGT) Line P in Kentucky and West Virginia. CGT is a subsidiary of\nNiSource Gas Transmission & Storage (NGT&S).\nAs a result of the investigation it appears that conditions exist on CGT's pipeline facilities that\npose a pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property or the environment. Pursuant to\n49 U.S.C. §60117(l), PHMSA issues this Notice of Proposed Safety Order (Notice), notifying\nyou of the preliminary findings of the investigation, and proposing that you take measures to\nensure that the public, property, and the environment are protected from the potential risk.\nThe pipeline facilities that pose a pipeline integrity risk are located in the downstream\nsegment of CGT's approximately 66.5-mile Line P, which originates at the Beaver Creek\nJunction in Floyd County, Kentucky and terminates at the Kenova Compressor Station in\nWayne County, West Virginia. Natural gas flows through Line P from south to north, which\noperates as two distinct operating segments with the upstream segment running from Beaver\nCreek Junction to Chestnut Junction, and the downstream segment running from Chestnut\nJunction to the Kenova Compressor Station.\nThe downstream segment is approximately 38 miles long and originates at Chestnut Junction\nwhere CGT's Line PM 117 delivers additional gas into Line P. There is one compressor\nstation, Walbridge, located approximately 15 miles downstream of Chestnut Junction and 23\nmiles upstream of Kenova; however, the Walbridge Station does not operate as a booster unit\nalong Line P. Walbridge contains a single 800 hp unit that serves to compress local\nproduction gas from CGT's Line BM-19 into Line P.\n\n\n\n2\nCGT's records indicate the downstream pipeline segment of Line P consists of approximately\n2 miles of 16-inch, 32.5 miles of 20-inch, and 3.5 miles of 24-inch pipe. Approximately 10\nmiles of the 20-inch (several sections) is composed of seamless, bare, coupled pipe with no\ncathodic protection. This pipe was originally installed in 1928 and is located within an area\nthat extends approximately 12 miles downstream from Chestnut Junction. The remaining 28\nmiles of the downstream segment is coated, welded pipe installed at various times between\n1958 and 1999.\nThe maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of the downstream segment was\noriginally established as 360 psig but was subsequently lowered to 288 psig based on a Class\nLocation 2 area located downstream of Chestnut Junction. According to CGT, approximately\n10 miles of the pipe in the downstream segment has a hoop strength that corresponds to 600\npsig at 100% of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) 1\nwith the remaining 28 miles\nhaving a hoop strength that corresponds to 950 psig or greater at 100% SMYS.\nPreliminary Findings\nOn September 9, 2010, a rupture occurred in the downstream segment of CGT's Line P\npipeline about half way between Chestnut Junction and the Kenova Compressor Station,\napproximately 850 feet south of State Route 645 in Lawrence County, Kentucky. The rupture\noccurred in a Class Location 1 area. There was no ignition of the escaping natural gas.\nThe rupture occurred in an approximately 3-mile continuous pipe section of the bare, coupled,\n20-inch OD x 0.250-inch WT seamless pipe with unknown grade that was installed in 1928.\nThe nearest sections of cathodically protected coated pipe are located approximately 150 feet\ndownstream of the rupture site and approximately 3 miles upstream of the rupture site. The\ncoated section located approximately 150 feet downstream of the rupture site was installed in\n1979 and is approximately 170 feet long. The coated section located 3 miles upstream of the\nrupture site was installed in 1969 and is approximately 1 mile long.\nAn assessment of the site by the operator indicated that the failure occurred in a section of\nuncoated pipe that was constructed in the late 1920’s with Dresser couplings as the joining\nmethod between 20 foot nominal lengths of pipe. An approximately 20-foot long joint of pipe\nwas expelled from the ground and landed approximately 90 feet from the site of the rupture.\nThe expelled piece was a full 20-foot joint of pipe, which had separated from the nearest\nupstream and downstream couplings. The origin of the failure appeared to be within the\nexpelled joint, located approximately 7-8 feet from one end of the joint. A preliminary\nevaluation of the failure origin by CGT indicated an area of reduced wall thickness on the\nexternal surface, likely caused by external corrosion. Wall thickness measurements of 119-\n120 mils were recorded using an ultrasonic thickness (UT) gauge at the likely site of the\nrupture origin, as compared to a measurement of 301 mils near the end of the joint.\n1 When pipe of unknown grade is used in a pipeline and it has not been tensile tested, the federal pipeline safety\nregulations specify that 24,000 psi is to be used as the assumed minimum yield strength for design purposes (see\n§192.107(b)(2)). By using 24,000 psi in the design formula for steel pipe, the operator has calculated that 600\npsig is the internal operating pressure that corresponds to 100% SMYS for this pipe.\n\n\n\n3\nThe approximately 10 miles of bare, coupled, cathodically unprotected seamless pipe\nremaining in the downstream segment of Line P is a pipeline integrity risk to public safety,\nproperty or the environment as follows:\n• Wall Loss - Based on an examination of the ruptured pipe and CGT's records, areas of\nexcessive wall loss caused by external corrosion along the cathodically unprotected\nsections of the 10 miles of bare pipe are likely. External corrosion can be exacerbated by\nthe existence of a corrosive environment. CGT identified a corrosive environment as a\npossible contributing factor to the incident in its preliminary analysis after the failure.\n• Dresser couplings - These couplings can only withstand a small amount of \"pulling\" force\nacross the coupling before a pipe joint will separate from the coupling. The couplings can\nalso fail due to axial thrust forces at closely spaced angle changes or pipe bends. These\nproblems can be exacerbated by certain environmental conditions such as shallow cover,\nhigh water table, rutted right-of-way, saturated soft soil, erosion, soil movement, and\nrecent excavation. Moreover, the couplings electrically isolate each pipe joint preventing\nthe use of an impressed current cathodic protection system on the pipeline segment\nwithout bonding across each coupling.\n• Age and Condition - This pipe was installed circa 1928. There is virtually no possibility\nthat the condition of this cathodically unprotected pipe will get better over time.\nConversely, the condition of this pipe will likely continue to deteriorate over time and lead\nto more safety concerns as time goes by.\n• Assessment - Under existing regulations, the failure in the downstream segment of Line P\non September 9, 2010, requires CGT to assess and mitigate integrity issues on this\npipeline segment. There are, however, technical issues that will make assessment of this\nbare, coupled, cathodically unprotected, pipe challenging. There are four accepted\nmethods2\nto assess pipelines:\n− In-Line Inspection (ILI): The use of ILI to assess this segment is not considered\nviable due to the relatively low operating pressure of the pipeline. In essence there is\nnot enough differential pressure to drive an ILI tool\n− Pressure tests: Notwithstanding certain exceptions, hydrostatic pressure testing using\nwater as the test medium is the preferred pressure test assessment method for gas\ntransmission pipelines. That said the use of hydrostatic pressure tests on this segment\nmay not be a viable assessment method because of the Dresser couplings.\n− Direct Assessment: This method includes External Corrosion Direct Assessment\n(ECDA), Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment (ICDA), and Stress Corrosion\nCracking Direct Assessment (SCCDA). Because this is bare, cathodically unprotected,\ncoupled pipe there are very few direct assessment methods available to complete these\nassessments.\n2 PHMSA acknowledges that these assessment methods are generally used to evaluate the integrity of pipelines\nin High Consequence Areas (HCAs) regulated under the Gas Transmission Pipeline Integrity Management rules\nin 49 CFR Part 192, Subpart O. However, these assessment methods can and should be used by operators to\nevaluate the integrity of other pipeline segments that pose an integrity risk to public safety, property or the\nenvironment.\n\n\n\n4\n− Other technology: The use of other technologies on bare, unprotected, coupled pipe is\nnot a likely option for assessment in that most new assessment technologies are\ndeveloped to assess welded, coated pipe that is cathodically protected.\nProposed Issuance of Safety Order\nSection 60117(l) of Title 49, United States Code, provides for the issuance of a safety order,\nafter reasonable notice and the opportunity for a hearing, requiring corrective measures,\nwhich may include physical inspection, testing, repair, or other action, as appropriate. The\nbasis for making the determination that a pipeline facility has a condition or conditions that\npose a pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property, or the environment is set forth both in\nthe above-referenced statute and 49 CFR §190.239, a copy of which is enclosed.\nAfter evaluating the foregoing preliminary findings of fact and considering the age of the pipe\ninvolved, the manufacturer, the hazardous nature of the product transported and the pressure\nrequired for transporting such product, the characteristics of the geographical areas where the\npipeline facility is located, and the likelihood that the conditions could worsen or develop on\nother areas of the pipeline and potentially impact its serviceability, it appears that the\ncontinued operation of the affected pipeline without corrective measures would pose a\npipeline integrity risk to public safety, property, or the environment.\nAccordingly, PHMSA issues this Notice of Proposed Safety Order to notify Respondent of\nthe proposed issuance of a safety order and to propose that Respondent take the measures\nspecified herein to address the potential risk.\nResponse to this Notice\nIn accordance with §190.239, you have 30 days following receipt of this Notice to submit a\nwritten response to the official who issued the Notice. If you do not respond within 30 days,\nthis constitutes a waiver of your right to contest this Notice and authorizes the Associate\nAdministrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice\nto you and to issue a Safety Order. In your response, you may notify that official that you\nintend to comply with the terms of the Notice as proposed, or you may request that an\ninformal consultation be scheduled (you will also have the opportunity to request an\nadministrative hearing before a safety order is issued). Informal consultation provides you\nwith the opportunity to explain the circumstances associated with the risk condition(s) alleged\nin the notice and, as appropriate, to present a proposal for a work plan or other remedial\nmeasures, without prejudice to your position in any subsequent hearing. If you and PHMSA\nagree within 30 days of informal consultation on a plan and schedule for you to address each\nidentified risk condition, we may enter into a written consent agreement (PHMSA would then\nissue an administrative consent order incorporating the terms of the agreement). If a consent\nagreement is not reached, or if you have elected not to request informal consultation, you may\nrequest an administrative hearing in writing within 30 days following receipt of this Notice or\nwithin 10 days following the conclusion of an informal consultation that did not result in a\nconsent agreement, as applicable. Following a hearing, if the Associate Administrator finds\nthe facility to have a condition that poses a pipeline integrity risk to the public, property, or\nthe environment in accordance with §190.239, the Associate Administrator may issue a safety\norder.\n\n\n\n5\nBe advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to\nbeing made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original\ndocument you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe\nqualify 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).\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 2-2010-1010S for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nProposed Corrective Measures\nPursuant to 49 U.S.C. §60117(l) and 49 C.F.R. §190.239, PHMSA proposes to issue to\nColumbia Gas Transmission LLC (CGT) a safety order incorporating the following remedial\nrequirements with respect to its Line P in Kentucky and West Virginia:\n1. PHMSA has previously approved a return to service plan. If and when the downstream\nsegment of Line P is returned to service, CGT is to maintain a pressure reduction of at\nleast 20% of the operating pressure in place at the time of rupture on September 9,\n2010, until and unless an increase in pressure is approved by PHMSA.\n2. CGT is to perform a root cause analysis to:\na. Determine the cause of the failure, including a study and analysis of\nenvironmental, material, operational, personal performance and other factors\nthat may have contributed to the failure;\nb. Review the control center response to the accident to determine the adequacy\nof pipeline information provided to the Supervisory Control and Data\nAcquisition (SCADA) system and to review control center procedures, alarms,\nand controller training for recognizing pipeline failures; and,\nc. Provide a report on the root cause analysis to the Director, Southern Region.\n3. Within 60 days after a safety order is issued, CGT is to develop and submit to the\nDirector, Southern Region for approval a work plan to replace all bare, coupled,\ncathodically unprotected line pipe in the Line P within 12 months from the date of the\nsafety order. The Director may approve plan elements incrementally. At a minimum,\nthe work plan must include:\na. A milestone schedule to show the key elements required for pipe replacement\nsuch as pipe procurement, permits, begin construction, pressure testing, etc.\nb. The specific pipeline sections to be replaced identified by mile post or\nstationing.\nc. The specifications of the pipe to be installed.\nd. The name, phone number, and email address of CGT's point-of-contact for the\npipe replacement project.\n4. CGT is to revise the work plan if necessary to incorporate new information obtained\nduring the pipe replacement project and is to submit any such plan revisions to the\nDirector, Southern Region for approval. The Director may approve plan revisions\nincrementally.\n5. The work plan and all revisions will become incorporated into the safety order.\n6. Beginning 90 days after a safety order is issued, CGT is to prepare and submit\nmonthly progress reports to the Director, Southern Region, with sufficient detail to\n\n\n\n6\nallow the Director to track the progress of the pipe replacement project and to provide\nthe Director an opportunity to observe and inspect construction activities as they\noccur.\n7. CGT will implement the work plan as it is approved by the Director, including any\nrevisions to the plan.\n8. The Director may grant an extension of time for compliance with any of the terms of\nthe safety order upon a written request timely submitted demonstrating good cause for\nan extension.\n9. The Director may allow the removal or modification of the pressure restriction set\nforth in Item 1 upon a written request from CGT demonstrating that the hazard has\nbeen abated and that restoring the pipeline to its pre-failure operating pressure is\njustified based on a reliable engineering analysis showing that the pressure increase is\nsafe considering all known defects, anomalies and operating parameters of the\npipeline. The Director's determination will be based on all known factors and\nprovisions of evidence that mitigative actions taken by the operator provide for the\nsafe operation of the pipeline segment.\n10. CGT may appeal any decision of the Director to the Associate Administrator for\nPipeline Safety. Decisions of the Associate Administrator shall be final.\nThe actions proposed by this Notice of Proposed Safety Order are in addition to and do not\nwaive any requirements that apply to Respondent’s pipeline system under 49 C.F.R. Parts 190\nthrough 199, under any other order issued to Respondent under authority of 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60101 et seq., or under any other provision of Federal or state law.\nAfter receiving and analyzing additional data in the course of this proceeding and\nimplementation of the work plan, PHMSA may identify other safety measures that need to be\ntaken. In that event, Respondent will be notified of any proposed additional measures and, if\nnecessary, amendments to the work plan or safety order.\n___________________________________ __________________\nWayne T. Lemoi Date issued\nDirector, Southern Region\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n220101010S_Closure Letter_12072011_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nDecember 7, 2011\nVictor Gaglio\nSr. Vice President of Operations and Engineering\nColumbia Gas Transmission LLC\n1700 MacCorkle Av., SE\nCharleston, WV 25314\nCPF 2-2010-1010S\nDear Mr. Gaglio:\nOn June 17, 2011, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued a Consent Order (Order) to Columbia Gas Transmission LLC (CGT) incorporating the\nterms of a Consent Agreement signed by PHMSA and CGT on February 11, 2011. The\nConsent Agreement resulted from a Notice of Proposed Safety Order (Notice) issued to CGT\nalleging that “CGT’s 20-inch natural gas ‘Line P’ pipeline or a portion thereof has an\napparent condition that, without corrective measures, would pose a pipeline integrity risk to\npublic safety, property, or the environment.” Specifically, the Notice alleged that the\nconditions associated with a September 9, 2010 rupture that occurred on a section of\napproximately 10 miles of bare cathodically unprotected pipe located in Lawrence County,\nKentucky required corrective measures to ensure safety.\nThe PHMSA Southern Region has received and reviewed CGT’s letter of November 17, 2011, in\nwhich CGT summarized the actions it has taken to comply with the Order. Our review confirms\nthat CGT has met the terms of the Order. Therefore, no further action is necessary with regards to\nthis Order and this case is now closed. Accordingly, the pressure restriction on Line P is removed.\nPlease be advised that this letter refers only to the Consent Order (CPF 2-2010-1010S) and\nnot to other PHMSA pending cases, if any. Also be advised that nothing herein states or\nimplies that the above described Line P meets the requirements of the federal pipeline safety\nregulations. The pipeline system remains subject to inspection by PHMSA.\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Office of Pipeline\nPHMSA Southern Region\n\n220101010S_Consent Agreement _06172011.pdf\n\nllEPARTMENT OF TRANSI'ORTATION\nPIPELINE ANn H.AZARDOUSMATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nSouthell1 Region\nAtlanta, GA 30303\nIn the Matter of )\n)\n)\nColumbia Gas Transmission LLC )\nRespondent )\n) CPF 2~201O-1010S\nCONSENT AGREEMENT\nOn Septembt.'T 20, 2010, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),\nU.S. Department ofTransportation, issued to Columbia Gas Transmission LLC (CGT or\nRespondent) a!'iotice ofPropost-'<i Safety Order (NOPSO). The Notice alleged that conditions\nexist on CGT's pipeline tllCilities that pose a pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property, or\nthe enviro11ment The Notice also proposed that Respondent take certain con-ective measures to\nCOlTect the alleged conditions and ensur(;' that the public. property. and the environment are\nprotectedliom the potential risk.\nCGT responded to the Notice by letter dated October 29,2010 (Response). Respondent stated its\nintent to comply with the tCTIns of the proposed safety order and requested an informal\nconsultation to discuss the Terms of a written consent ab'Tccment and resolve the issues that were\nraised in the proposed safety order. I An infbnual consultation was held via telephone.\nDuring the informal consultation. PHMSA and CGT agreed that settlement of this proceeding\nwill avoid fmther administrative proceedings or litigation and that entry into this Consent\nAgreement is the most appropriate means of resolving thc Notice. pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part\n190, without adj udication of any issue of fact or law; and upon consent and agreement of\nRespondent and PHMSA (\"the Parties\"), the agree as follows:\n1. General Provisions\nL Respondent acknowledges that as operator ofthe pipeline, Respondent and its pipeline\nsystem are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.5.C 60101 et seq ..\nand the re!:,rulations and administrative orders issued thereunder. For purposes of this Consent\nAgreemenL Respondent acknowledges that it received proper notice ofPHMSA's action in this\nI\nCGT'~ RespzlUse is inc:orporated intz' ihis Consent i\\greement in whok~ (sec attached).\n\n\n\n2\nproceeding and that the Notice states claims upon which rclicfmay be f,'Tanted pursuant to\n49LJ .S.c. 60101 et and the regulations and orders issued thereunder.\n2. Respondent does not admit or dt'l1Y any allegation or conclusion in the Notice but agrees,\nfor purposes of this Consent Ae,.rreement that the condition identified in the Notice exists and\nagrees to address it by completing the actions specitled in Section II ofthis agreement\nC\"Con\"ective Measures\"), These actions. including any \\vork plans and schedules, shall\namomatically be incorporated into this agreement. This Consent At,'Teement does not constitute\na finding of violation of Federal law ()r r::;gu]ation and therefore may not be used in any civil\nproceeding of any kind as evidence or proof of any f~iCt. fault or liabiliry, or as evidence of the\nviolation of any law. rule. regulation or requirement, except in a proceeding to enforce the\nprovisions of this agreement or in future PHMSA e:llltxcement actions.\n3. After Respondent returns this signed agreement, PHMSA's representative will present it to\nthe Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety recommending that the Associate Administrator\nadopt the terms ofthis agreement by issuing an administrative order (Consent Order)\nincorporating the terms of this Consent Ab1fet'-'l11ent. The teons of this agreement constitute an\noffer ofsettlement uutil accepted the Associate Administrator.\n4, Respondent consents to the issuance of the Consent Order, and hereby waives any further\nprocedural requirements with respect to its issuance. Respondent waives all rights to contest the\nadequacy of notice, or the validity (Ifthe Consent Order or this Consent Agreement including all\nrights to administrative or judi\"~ial hearings or appeals.\n5. 'fhis Consent Agreement shall apply to and be binding upon PHMSA, and upon\nRespond<''l1t. its officers. directors. and employees. and its successors, assigns, or other entities or\npersons otherwise bound by law. Respondent agrees t(\\ provide a copy of this agrcmnent and any\nintorporated work plans and schedules to all of Respondent's officers. employees, and agents\nwhose duties might reasonably include compliance with this agreement.\n6. For all transfers of ownership or operating responsibility of Respondent's pipeline,\nRespondent must provide a copy of this Consent Ai::,1feement to the prospective transferee at least\n30 days prior to such transfer and simultaneously provide written notice of the prospc(..1ive\ntransfer to the PHMSA Regional Director who issued the Notice.\n7. This Consent Agreement constitutes the final, complete and exclusive agreement and\nunderstanding betwcL'l1 the Partics with respect to the settlement embodied in this agreement. and\nthe Parties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements or understandings relating\nto the settlement other than those expressly contained 1n this agreement, exc<,>pt that the tenns of\nthis agreement may be construed by reference to the Notice.\n8. Nothing in this Consent Agreement affects or relieves Respondent of1tS responsibility to\ncomply with all applicable requirements of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.c. S60101\nef seq .. and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. Nothing in this uh'Teement alters\nPHMSA's right ofaccess, entry, inspection, and inJeml1nlion gathering or PHMSA's authority to\nbring enforcement actions against Respondent pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, the\nreguiations and orders issued th.ereunder, or any other provision of Federal or State law.\n\n\n\nr\n9. This Consent Agreement does not waive or modify any Federal. State. or localluws or\nregulations that arc applicable to Respondent's pipciine systems. This ablTcemcnt is not a pennit\nor a modificatioll of any permit under any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations.\nR.cspondent remainsresponsible for achieving and maintaining compliance with all applicable\nFederaL State. and local laws, regulations and pemlits.\n10. This Consent Agreement does not create rights in, or .6lTant any cause of action to, any\nthird party not party to thi~ agreement. The U.S. Department ofTransponation is not liable for\nany injuries or damages to persons or property arising ii'om acts or omissions of Respondent or\nits of1icers, employees, or agents carrying out the work required by this agreement. The U.S.\nDc-partment ofTransportation, its officers, employees. agents, and representatives are not liable\ni<lr any cause of action arising from any acts or omissions of Rcspondent or its contractors in\ncarrying out any work required by tbis a.6lTcement.\nII. Corrective Measures\nII. Within 365 days following the issuance of the Consent Order, Respondent agrees to\npertom1 all Proposed Corrective Measures set f{)rth in tne Notice ofProposeci Safety Order,\nwhich is herehy incorporated into this Consent Agreement. Respondent wi11 revise the work plan\nrequired by Item 3 of the Proposed Corrective Measures as necessary to incorporate new\nintcmnation it obtains during the rernedial activities perfiJnncd under the work plan. Respondent\nwill submit any such plnn revisions to the Regional Director fbI' prior approval. The Regional\nDirector may approve work plan elements incrementally.\n12. Respondent 3.6lTeeS to submit monthly reports to the Regional Director that: (1) include all\navailable data and results of any testing and evaluations pL-rfonned pursuant to the Proposed\nSafety Order: and (2) describe the progress ortne repairs or other remedjal actions being\nundertaken. CGT submitted monthly reports in December 20JO and in January 20J 1 that\npreceded this Consent Agreement. CGT should continue monthly reports until CGT has\ncompleted all the Corrective Measures required by this Consent Agreement.\n13. Respondent agrees to maintain documentation of the costs associated with the\nimplementation ofthe Proposed Safety Order. Respondent will include in the third monthly\nreport and every third monthly report it submits thereafter pursuant to paragraph J2, the to-date\ntotal costs associated with: (1 ) testing. evaluations and iniom1ation analysis; (2) revisions of\nprocedures and additional monitoring and inspections; and (3) physical changes to pipeline\ninfrastructure, including repairs, replacements and other modifications.\nJ4. The Regional Director may grant an extension oftime f<:)r Respondent to complete any of\nthe work to be performed ifRespondent submits a timely written request demonstrating good\ncause for an extension.\nIn. Review and Approval Process\n] 5. With respect to any submission under Section II of this Consent Agreement that requires\nthe approval of the Regional Director. the Director may: (a) approve, in whole or in part, the\nsubmission, (b) approve the submission 011 specified conditions, (c) disapprove, in whole or in\npart, the submission, or (d) any combination of the foregoing. If the Regional Director approves.\n\n\n\n4\napproves in part, or approvc~ with conditions. Respondent will take all action as approved by the\nDirector, subject to Respondent's right to invoke the dispute resolution procedures in Section IV\nwith respect to any conditions the Director identifies. If the Director disapproves all or any\nportion of the submission, the Director will provide Respondent with a written notice ofthe\ndeticiencies. Respondent will correct all deficiencies \\\\'ithil1 the time specified by the Director\nand resubmit it for approvaL\nIV. Dispute Resolution\n16. The Regional Director and Respondent \\vill informally attempt to resolve any disputes\narising under this Consent Agreement. If Respondent and the Regional Director are unable to\ninfonnally resolve the dispute within] 5 days. Respondent may request in writing, within 10\ndays, a \\vritten delenl1ination resolving the dispute from the Associate Administrator for Pipeline\nSafety providing all information that Respondent beJieves is relevant to the di spute. If the request\nis submitted as provided herein, the Associate Administrator will issue a final determination in\nwriting. The existence of a dispute and PHMSA's consideration of matters placed in dispute will\nnor excuse, tolL or suspend any term or timeframe for completion of any work to be performed\nunder this agreement during the pendency of the dispute resolution process except as agreed by\nthe Regional Director or the Associate Administrator in writing.\nV. Enforcement\n17. This Conscnt Agreement, as adopted by the Consent Order. is subject to all enforcement\nauthorities avai.1ableto PHM.SA under 49 U.S.C. § 60101 et seq. and 49 C.F.R. Part 190,\nincluding administrative civil penalties und(.'Y § 60112 of up to S1(lO,OOO per violation for each\nday the violation continues, ifPHMSA determines that Respondent is not proceeding according\nto the terms ofthe agreement, determinations made by the Regional Director. or if appealed,\ndecisions of the Associate Administrator. All work plans and associated schedules set fc)rth or\nreferenced in Section II will be automatically incorporated into this Consent Agreement and are\nenforceable in the same manner.\nvr. Record Keeping and Information Uisclosure\n(8. Respondent agrees TO maintain records demonstrating compliance with all requirements\nof this Consent Agreement for a period of at least five years following completion of all work to\nbe perfonned. For any reports, plans. or other deliverab1es required to be submitted to PHMSA\npursuant to this Consent AgreemL-'11t, Respondent may asscl1 a claim ofbusiness confidentiality\nor other protections applicable to the release of infoffi1ation by PHMSA, covering part or all of\nthe infonnation required to be submitted to PHMSA pursuant to this agreemcnt in accordance\nwith 49 C.F.R. Part 7. Respondent must mark the claim of confidentiality in writing on each\npage, and include a statel11cmt specifying the f,'Tounds for each claim of confidentially. PHMSA\ndetennines release of any infon11ation submitted pursuant to this Consent Agreement in\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 7, the Freedom of lnfonnation Act 5 l.i.S.C. § 552, DOT and/or\nPHMSA policies, and other applicable regulations and Executive Orders.\n\n\n\n.r\n5\nVB. Effective Date\n19. The \"Effective Date\" as used herein is the date on which this Consent Agreement has\nbeen signed by both Respondent and PHMSA.\nVllI. Modification\n20. The terms of this Consent Agreement may he moditied by mutual agreement of the\nparties. Such modifications must be in writing and signed by both parties.\nIX. Termination\n21. This Consent Agreement terminares upon completion of all tcnm set l()lih in Section II\n(Corrective Measures) as determined by the Director, Southem Region. Respondent may request\nwritten confirmation from PHMSA when this af!reement is terminated. To the extent ongoing\nmonitoring is required: PHMSA may terminaie this agreement with respect to all other\nrequirements with the exception of such monitoring. Nothing in this agreement prevents\nRespondent from completing any ofthc obligations earlier than the deadiines provided for in this\nAbrreement.\nX. Ratification\n22, The Parties undersigned representatives certify that they arc fully authorized to enter into\nthe terms and conditions of this Consent Agreement and to execute and legally bind such party to\nthis document.\n22. The Parties hereby agree to all conditions and tenm ofthis Consent Agreement:\nForPHMSA: For Respondent:\n/'\n/;/ /' ..' tj/\n'\"/ lr- //'\n/ illk·-·'7 / / \"\n._JL.... /.:.<.':£LL\"-(~o/\nVictor Gaglio //\nSr. Vice President, /\nOperations and Engilleering\nColumbia Gas Transmission LLC\n\n220101010S_Consent Order_06172011_text.pdf\n\nJUN 17 2011\nMr. Victor Gaglio\nSr. Vice President of Operations and Engineering\nColumbia Gas Transmission, LLC\n1700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE\nCharleston, WV 25314\nRe: CPF No. 2-2010-1010S\nDear Mr. Gaglio:\nEnclosed please find a Consent Order incorporating the terms of the Consent Agreement that you\nsigned on February 11, 2011. Service of the Consent Order and Consent Agreement by certified\nmail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, Pipeline Safety\nMr. Wayne T. Lemoi, Director, Southern Region, PHMSA\nMr. Perry Michael Hoffman, Manager − System Integrity, NiSource Gas Transmission &\nStorage\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0075 9367]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nColumbia Gas Transmission LLC, ) CPF No. 2-2010-1010S\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nCONSENT ORDER\nBy letter dated September 20, 2010 the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA) Office of Pipeline Safety issued a Notice of Proposed Safety Order (Notice) to\nColumbia Gas Transmission LLC (Respondent) in this case.\nIn accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.239, the Notice alleged that Respondent’s 20-inch natural\ngas “Line P” pipeline or portion thereof has an apparent condition that, without corrective\nmeasures, would pose a pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property, or the environment and\nproposed that Respondent take certain actions to address the condition. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that the conditions associated with a September 9, 2010 rupture that occurred on a\nsection of approximately 10 miles of bare cathodically unprotected pipe located in Lawrence\nCounty, Kentucky required corrective measures to ensure safety.\nIn response to the Notice, Respondent requested an informal consultation and Respondent and\nPHMSA engaged in good faith settlement discussions resulting in the Consent Agreement\nattached to this Order that settles all of the allegations in the Notice.\nAccordingly, the foregoing Consent Agreement is herby approved and incorporated by reference\ninto this Order. The Respondent is hereby ordered to comply with terms of the Consent\nAgreement, effective immediately.\nPursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. and 49 C.F.R § 190.221, failure to comply with this Consent\nOrder may result in the assessment of civil penalties of up to $100,000 per violation per day, or\nin the referral of the case for judicial enforcement. The terms and conditions of this Consent\nOrder are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n220101010S_Consent Agreement_06172011_text.pdf\n\nJUN 17 11\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nSouthern Region\nAtlanta, GA 30303\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\n)\n)\nColumbia Gas Transmission LLC )\nRespondent )\n____________________________________)\n) CPF 2-2010-1010S\nCONSENT AGREEMENT\nOn September 20, 2010, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),\nU.S. Department of Transportation, issued to Columbia Ga","truncated":true,"body_characters":53279}