{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220141006","title":"CAROLINA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2014-10-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.616(a), 192.805(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220141006.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220141006.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220141006","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220141006","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving CAROLINA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.616(a),  192.805(b). The case was opened on 2014-10-22 and is reported as closed as of 2017-10-16. Proposed civil penalty: $46,400. Assessed civil penalty: $46,400. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220141006_Closure_Letter_10162017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220141006/220141006_Closure_Letter_10162017.pdf\n\n220141006_Closure_Letter_10162017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220141006/220141006_Closure_Letter_10162017_text.pdf\n\n220141006_Final Order_02172016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220141006/220141006_Final%20Order_02172016.pdf\n\n220141006_Final Order_02172016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220141006/220141006_Final%20Order_02172016_text.pdf\n\n220141006_NOPV_PCP_PCO_10222014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220141006/220141006_NOPV_PCP_PCO_10222014.pdf\n\n220141006_NOPV_PCP_PCO_10222014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220141006/220141006_NOPV_PCP_PCO_10222014_text.pdf\n\n220141006_Operator Response Notice_12042014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220141006/220141006_Operator%20Response%20Notice_12042014.pdf\n\n220141006_Final Order_02172016_text.pdf\n\nFebruary 17, 2016\nMr. Keith Windle\nGeneral Manager\nDominion Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC\n220 Operations Way\nCayce, South Carolina 29033\nRe: CPF No. 2-2014-1006\nDear Mr. Windle:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $46,400. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the\nFinal Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order\ncompleted, as determined by the Director, Southern 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: Director, Southern Region, PHMSA, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2014-1006\nPage 2\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n_______________________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nDominion Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC, )\n(successor of Carolina Gas Transmission Corporation, ) a subsidiary of Dominion Midstream Partners, LP), )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n_______________________________________________ )\nCPF No. 2-2014-1006\nFINAL ORDER\nOn July 30-31, 2014, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Carolina Gas\nTransmission Corporation (CGT or Respondent) in Cayce, South Carolina. CGT was\nsubsequently sold to Dominion Resources, Inc., and is now known as Dominion Carolina Gas\nTransmission (DCGT), a subsidiary of Dominion Midstream Partners LP.1 DCGT is an\ninterstate natural gas transportation company that operates approximately 1,467 miles of gas\ntransmission pipeline in South Carolina and Georgia.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to CGT, by\nletter dated October 22, 2014, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that CGT had\nviolated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.616 and 192.805 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $46,400 for\nthe alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures\nto correct the alleged violations. The warning item required no further action, but warned the\noperator to correct the probable violation.\n1 Effective February 1, 2015, Dominion Resources, Inc. acquired Carolina Gas Transmission Corporation (CGT)\nfrom SCANA Corp. On March 24, CGT assumed its new name as Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC, and\non April 1, 2015, Dominion Midstream Partners, LP, acquired Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission from\nDominion Resources, Inc.\n2 Current as of December 16, 2015 (https://www.carolinagastransmission.com/about-cgt)\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2014-1006\nPage 3\nCGT responded to the Notice by letter dated December 4, 2014 (Response). The company\ncontested the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested\nthat the proposed civil penalty be eliminated. CGT did not request a hearing and therefore has\nwaived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616 (a), which states:\n§ 192.616 Public awareness.\n(a) Except for an operator of a master meter or petroleum gas system\ncovered under paragraph (j) of this section, each pipeline operator must\ndevelop and implement a written continuing public education program that\nfollows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute’s (API)\nRecommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see\n§ 192.7).\nThe regulation references API RP 1162, which states, in relevant part:\nAPI RP 1162 (1st Edition)\nSection 8.3\nThe operator should complete an annual audit or review of whether the\nprogram has been developed and implemented according to the guidelines\nin this RP. The purpose of the audit is to answer the following two\nquestions:\n- Has the Public Awareness Program been developed and written to\naddress the objectives, elements and baseline schedule as described in\nSection 2 and the remainder of this RP?\n- Has the Public Awareness Program been implemented and\ndocumented according to the written program?\nAppendix E includes a sample set of questions that will aid an operator\nin auditing the program implementation process.\nThe operator should use one of the following three alternative\nmethodologies when completing an annual audit of program\nimplementation:\n- Internal self-assessments using, for example, an internal working\ngroup, or\n- Third-party audits where the evaluation is undertaken by a third-party\nengaged to conduct an assessment and provide recommendations for\nimproving the program design or implementation, or\n- Regulatory inspections, undertaken by inspectors working for federal\nor state regulators who inspect operator pipeline programs subject to\npipeline safety regulations.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2014-1006\nPage 4\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(a) by failing to conduct annual\naudits or reviews of its written Pipeline Public Awareness Plan (PAP) to determine whether the\nprogram was developed and implemented in accordance with API RP 1162. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that at the time of the 2014 PHMSA inspection, CGT could not verify, and did\nnot provide any evidence to PHMSA to show that it had conducted any annual audits or reviews\nof its PAP from April 20, 2011 (the last date of a previous PHMSA Public Awareness\ninspection), to July 31, 2014, the last day of the current inspection.\nIn its Response, CGT asserted that PHMSA had misunderstood the steps CGT had taken to effect\ncompliance.\n3 CGT claimed that it relied on the 2011 PHMSA inspection that occurred on April\n18-20, 2011, for compliance with the annual audit requirement, as allowed under API RP 1162.\nThe 2011 inspection resulted in an OPS detailed review of CGT’s PAP that was documented on\nPHMSA PAP Effectiveness Inspection Form 21. For the 2012 and 2013 audit years, CGT\nasserted that it had completed internal self-assessments of its PAP development and\nimplementation, labeled ”Policy/Procedure Review Forms” dated March 15, 2012, and\nMarch 15, 2013.\nCGT never mentioned its intention to use the 2011 documentation report to fulfill its regulatory\nmandate before this Notice despite having its most senior PAP officials directly involved with\nthe 2014 inspection. Additionally, the 2011 inspection report does not meet the regulatory\nrequirements in part because it did not contain sufficient detail on the current state of the policy;\nit focused on too broad a time period (approximately 2006 to 2011). In terms of the 2012 and\n2013 annual audits, CGT has provided them as Exhibits A and B in its Response.4 Both are\naudit forms or checklists that contain assertions of review and room for stating which areas of the\nPAP should be revised, but do not contain answers to the specific questions required under API\nRP 1162 Section 8.3.\nCGT’s arguments are unconvincing. During the 2014 inspection, CGT did not offer evidence\ndocumenting fulfillment of their annual duty under API RP 1162 despite having the most senior\nPAP officials available, and while the 2011 documentation report could have served as an\neffective review, it was only presented as such after the current Notice. In addition, the 2012 and\n2013 internal policy review forms lack sufficient detail to meet the standards of API RP 1162.\nSection 8.3 requires an annual accounting of whether the PAP has been established and\npromoted according to a particular written program, and while the 2012 and 2013 policy review\nforms may point to evidence of an in-person review, they certainly do not document that review\nas required by the regulations. It should also be noted that the 2012 form actually calls for\nfurther review, but there is no documentation to show CGT has done that review. CGT does\nprovide a third-party report5 which devotes a portion to PAP Assessment, but in addition to not\nbeing available during the 2014 inspection, this document provides a cursory assessment without\n3 Operator Response at 3-6.\n4 Operator Response at 11-14.\n5 Operator Response at Exhibit C.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2014-1006\nPage 5\ndetails as to PAP program strengths or weaknesses. The complete review only occupies three to\nfour pages of the third-party’s complete report, and fails to specifically address the questions\npresented in Section 8.3.6 Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616 (a) by failing to conduct annual audits or reviews of its\nwritten PAP to determine whether the program was developed and implemented in accordance\nwith API RP 1162.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616 (a), as quoted above,\nand API RP 1162 (1st Edition), Section 8.5 – Table 8-1, which states, in relevant part:\nEvaluation of effectiveness of program implementation recommended\nfrequency: No more than four years apart.\nAccording to the Notice, Respondent allegedly violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(a) by failing to\ncomplete an effectiveness evaluation of its written PAP at intervals of no more than four years.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that at the time of the inspection, CGT could not verify, and did\nnot provide any evidence to PHMSA to show, that it had completed an evaluation of the\neffectiveness of its PAP implementation from the time the effectiveness evaluation was required\nby the regulations (June 20, 2010) to the last date of the current PHMSA inspection\n(July 31, 2014).\nIn its Response, CGT pointed to program effectiveness surveys it had disseminated in 2007,\n2008 and 20107. A copy of the June 2010 survey was provided in CGT’s Response at Exhibit D.\nIn addition, CGT prepared an additional survey subsequent to the 2011 PHMSA inspection, and\nthat (along with an analysis of same) was provided in CGT’s response at Exhibits E and F,\nrespectively. CGT considered the 2011 effort as fulfilling its duty under API RP 1162, and\ntherefore claimed that another public awareness program effectiveness evaluation should not be\ndue until 2015.\nPHMSA recognizes the efforts undertaken by CGT in 2010 and 2011, but finds them inadequate\nto meet the requirements of API RP 1162.8 While the effectiveness surveys provide CGT with\nbroad information on the recipient audience, they fail to provide the kind of granular detail\nrequired under a full effectiveness review in API RP 1162. API RP 1162’s requirements for a\nregular and thorough program effectiveness evaluation are clear. Not only is the time\nrequirement clear, but the impetus placed on identifying, targeting and then evaluating the efforts\nto serve pertinent audiences is spelled out clearly in the Recommended Practice. For instance,\nAPI RP 1162, Section 8.4 and Section 8.5, Table 8-1, provide further details on what operators\nmust do:\n6 Operator Response at 17-79.\n7 Operator Response at 6-9.\n8 PHMSA Recommendation at 3-5.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2014-1006\nPage 6\n• Define the objectives of the public awareness program (awareness, prevention, response)\n• Obtain management commitment\n• Establish roles and responsibilities of key players in the program\n• Identify pipeline assets\n• Identify stakeholder audiences\no Affected Public\no Emergency Officials\no Public Officials\no Excavators\n• Determine coverage area\n• Breakdown effectiveness by BOTH types of pipe AND audience\n• Determine baseline delivery frequency\n• Implement, assess and document the program\nThe documents provided by CGT were helpful, but were insufficient to meet the clear\nrequirements of the regulations. CGT completed surveys in 2010 and 2011, and provided some\nanalysis of those surveys9. Those surveys effectively documented mailer surveys sent to\nthousands of homes, but failed to document compliance with the thorough requirements of\nSection 8.5 mentioned above. The most obvious deficiency is shown in the data itself, where\nCGT’s own survey shows it was done without sufficient planning because it reached very few\npeople, and an extremely small number of respondents outside the general public10. In addition,\nthere is no evidence that CGT outlined its broader objectives, established roles of key players in\nits program or obtained management commitment in a systematic way. Accordingly, after\nconsidering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616 (a) by\nfailing to complete a public awareness program effectiveness evaluation of its written PAP at\nintervals of no more than four years.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\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.11 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\n9 Operator Response at 82 – 128.\n10 Operator Response at 81, 98, 124 and 128.\n11 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat.\n1904, January 3, 2012, increased the civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to $200,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2014-1006\nPage 7\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $46,400 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $30,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.616 (a), for failing to conduct annual audits or reviews of its written PAP, to determine\nwhether the program had been developed and implemented in accordance with API RP 1162.\nNeither the 2011 inspection documentation nor the 2012 and 2013 internal policy review forms\ncontain sufficient specificity to fulfill the detailed regulatory requirements of API RP 1162\nSection 8.3. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria and\nthe importance of keeping the community informed, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$30,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.616 (a).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $15,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.616 (a), for failing to complete a public awareness program effectiveness evaluation of its\nwritten PAP at intervals of no more than four years. A partial public awareness program\neffectiveness evaluation in both 2010 and 2011 (subsequent to PHMSA’s inspection), was\ninsufficient to meet the extensive requirements necessary to fulfill the regulations and standards\nin API RP 1162 Section 8.5. PHMSA acknowledges that CGT made an effort at measuring their\noutreach, but it failed to reach out with particularity to some of the most important members\nresponsible for protection of the community (emergency responders, public officials, etc.).\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, and considering\nthe importance of making sure emergency responders and local officials are aware of the dangers\npresented from gas lines, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $15,800 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.616 (a).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $46,400.\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 $46,400 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.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2014-1006\nPage 8\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 2 in the Notice for violations of 49\nC.F.R. § 192.616. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation\nof gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable\nsafety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to\nensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.616 (Item 2), Respondent must:\n• Complete a written PAP effectiveness evaluation that meets the requirements\nof API RP 1162, Section 8 within 60 days of issuance of the Final Order; and\n• Submit to the Director, Southern Region, the written effectiveness evaluation\nrequired above within 90 days of issuance of the Final Order.\n2. It is requested (not mandated) that Carolina maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the\ntotal to Director, PHMSA Southern Region. It is requested that these costs be\nreported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans,\nprocedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements,\naddition and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 3, the Notice alleged probable violation of Part 192 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be warning\nitems. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.805 (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to ensure through\nevaluation that individuals performing covered tasks under its Operator\nQualification (OQ) Plan were qualified to perform the covered tasks.\nIf OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject\nto future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent has the 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 the Final Order by\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2014-1006\nPage 9\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order, including\nany required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final\nOrder becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is\nwaived.\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\n220141006_Closure_Letter_10162017_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nOctober 16, 2017\nMr. Keith Windle\nGeneral Manager\nDominion Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC\n121 Moore Hopkins Lane\nColumbia, SC 29210\nCPF 2-2014-1006\nDear Mr. Windle:\nOn February 17, 2016, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) issued Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission,\nLLC (DCG) a Final Order with a Civil Penalty and Compliance Order (CO). The CO\nrequired DCG to undertake certain actions to ensure compliance with the federal pipeline\nsafety regulations.\nDCG paid the Civil Penalty on March 10, 2016 and OPS Southern Region received\ndocumentation on May 17, 2016, confirming that the CO Item had been completed.\nBased upon payment of the civil penalty, our review of the actions taken by DCG and the\nsupporting documentation, we have determined that DCG has complied with the terms of the\nCO and the Final Order. This case is now closed and no further action is necessary with\nrespect to the matters involved in this case.\nPlease be advised that this letter refers only to the above referenced order (CPF 2-2014-1006)\nand not to any other PHMSA cases, if any.\nSincerely,\nJames A. Urisko\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region","truncated":false,"body_characters":23802}