{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320091018","title":"COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2009-08-20","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.907(a), 192.921(a), 192.933(a), 192.933(b), 192.947(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320091018.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320091018.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320091018","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320091018","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.907(a),  192.921(a),  192.933(a),  192.933(b),  192.947(d). The case was opened on 2009-08-20 and is reported as closed as of 2010-11-16. Proposed civil penalty: $120,000. Assessed civil penalty: $120,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320091018_Final Order  11162010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320091018/320091018_Final%20Order%20%2011162010.pdf\n\n320091018_Final Order_11162010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320091018/320091018_Final%20Order_11162010_text.pdf\n\n320091018_NOPV PCP PCO_08202009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320091018/320091018_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08202009.pdf\n\n320091018_NOPV PCP PCO_08202009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320091018/320091018_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08202009_text.pdf\n\n320091018_Operator Response_09242009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320091018/320091018_Operator%20Response_09242009.pdf\n\n320091018_Final Order  11162010.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Ave., SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nNOV 1 62010\nMr. Victor M. Gaglio\nSenior Vice President, Operations\nNiSource Gas Transmission and Storage\n1700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE\nCharleston, WV 25301\nRe: CPF No. 3-2009-1018\nDear Mr. Gaglio:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $120,000, acknowledges your payment of the penalty by\nwire transfer, and finds that NiSource Gas Transmission has completed the actions specified in\nthe Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. This enforcement action is now\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,\nBitese\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\nCc:\nMr. Chad Zamarin, Director, Integrity Management, NiSource Gas Transmission\nand Storage, 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, TX 77056\nMr. David Barrett, Director, Central Region, PHMSA (by email)\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0041 0640]\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\n)\n)\nNiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, )\nCPF No. 3-2009-1018\n)\nRespondent.\n)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn July 17-21 and August 1-3, 2006, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, the New York Department of Public Service, and\nthe West Virginia Public Service Commission inspected the integrity management plan and\nprocedures of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage (NiSource or Respondent) in Charleston,\nWest Virginia. NiSource operates over 15,000 miles of natural gas pipelines including Columbia\nGas Transmission, Columbia Gulf Transmission, Crossroads Pipeline, and Granite State Gas\nTransmission operations.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated August 20, 2009, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that NiSource had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $120,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nNiSource responded to the Notice by letter dated September 24, 2009 (Response). The company\ndid not contest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $120,000, as\nprovided in 49 C.F.R. § 190.227. Payment of the penalty serves to close the case with prejudice\nto Respondent.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, NiSource did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 192, as follows:\nItem 1A: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.907(a), which states in\nrelevant part:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 192.907(a) What must an operator do to implement this subpart?\n(a) General. No later than December 17, 2004, an operator of a\ncovered pipeline segment must develop and follow a written integrity\nmanagement program that contains all the elements described in § 192.911\nand that addresses the risks on each covered transmission pipeline\nsegment.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.907(a) by failing to follow its\nwritten integrity management program including all elements specified in § 192.911. Section\n192.911(a) requires that the integrity management program include an identification of all high\nconsequence areas (HCAs). Specifically, the Notice alleged that NiSource did not identify all\nthe HCA locations along its 12-inch UM10 (Ashland, KY) pipeline system by the December 17,\n2004, deadline. Three additional HAs were identified at the time of the inspection in 2006.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.907(a) by failing to follow its\nwritten integrity management program and identify all HAs by the December 17, 2004,\ndeadline.\nItem 2A: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911,\nwhich states in relevant part:\n$ 192.911\nWhat are the elements of an integrity management\nprogram?\nThe initial [integrity management] program framework and\nsubsequent program must, at minimum, contain the following elements....\n(b) A baseline assessment plan meeting the requirements of § 192.919\nand § 192.921.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911 by failing to have a baseline\nassessment plan meeting the requirements of § 192.921. Section 192.921(a) requires that an\noperator select the method or methods of assessment best suited to address the threats identified\nto the covered segment. Specifically, the Notice alleged that NiSource's baseline assessment\nplan did not include assessment methods that address stress corrosion cracking (SCC) despite\nhaving identified several covered pipeline segments that met the ASME B31.8S criteria for SCC.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911 by failing to have a baseline\nassessment plan that included assessment methods suited to address all identified threats in\naccordance with the requirements of § 192.921.\nItem 3A: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(a), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.933 What actions must be taken to address integrity issues?\n(a) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to\naddress all anomalous conditions the operator discovers through the\nintegrity assessment. In addressing all conditions, an operator must\nevaluate all anomalous conditions and remediate those that could reduce a\npipeline's integrity....\n\n\n\n3\n(1) Temporary pressure reduction. If an operator is unable to\nrespond within the time limits for certain conditions specified in this\nsection, the operator must temporarily reduce the operating pressure of the\npipeline or take other action that ensures the safety of the covered\nsegment....\nAn operator must notify PHMSA in accordance with\n§ 192.949 if it cannot meet the schedule for evaluation and remediation\nrequired under paragraph (c) of this section and cannot provide safety\nthrough temporary reduction in operating pressure or other action....\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(a) by failing to either take\nprompt action to address all anomalous conditions discovered through integrity assessments or\nreduce operating pressure. Specifically, the Notice alleged that on two occasions NiSource did\nnot immediately remediate conditions that required immediate repair under § 192.933(d), did not\nreduce the operating pressure or take other action to ensure the safety of the covered segment,\nand did not notify PHMSA that it could not meet the schedule for remediation or take other\naction to provide safety. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly,\n3 192.933(a) by failing to either take prompt action to address all anomalous\nased upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.F\nconditions discovered through integrity assessments or reduce operating pressure.\nItem 3B: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(b),\nwhich states in relevant part:\n§ 192.933 What actions must be taken to address integrity issues?\n(a) ....\n(b) Discovery of condition. Discovery of a condition occurs when an\noperator has adequate information about a condition to determine that the\ncondition presents a potential threat to the integrity of the pipeline.... Ar\nintegrity assessment, obtain sufficient information about a condition to\noperator must promptly, but no later than 180 days after conducting ar\nmake that determination, unless the operator demonstrates that the 180-\nday period is impracticable.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(b) by failing to promptly\nassess available information and make a determination that a condition was a potential threat to\nthe integrity of the pipeline. Specifically, the Notice alleged that NiSource did not promptly\ndetermine that there were conditions requiring immediate repair following the June 29, 2004,\ninternal inspection of the VB LOOP line even though the final inspection report was made\navailable to NiSource on August 8, 2004, and contained sufficient information to make that\ndetermination. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon\na review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(b) by failing\nto promptly assess available information and make a determination that a condition was a\npotential threat to the integrity of the pipeline.\nItem 4A: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.947, which states:\n\n\n\n4\n$ 192.947 What records must an operator keep?\nAn operator must maintain, for the useful life of the pipeline, records that\ndemonstrate compliance with the requirements of [Subpart Ol. At\nminimum, an operator must maintain the following records for review\nduring an inspection.\n(a)\n(d)\nDocuments to support any decision, analysis and process\ndeveloped and used to implement and evaluate each element of the\nbaseline assessment plan and integrity management program. Documents\ninclude those developed and used in support of any identification,\ncalculation, amendment, modification, justification, deviation and\ndetermination made, and any action taken to implement and evaluate any\nof the program elements.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.947 by failing to maintain records\nthat demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the Gas Transmission Pipeline Integrity\nManagement regulations for the useful life of the pipeline. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nNiSource could not produce the dig/repair reports for two immediate repair conditions that were\nreported to have been addressed in November 2004. Respondent did not contest this allegation\nof violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 192.947 by failing to maintain records that demonstrate compliance with the\nrequirements of the Gas Transmission Pipeline Integrity Management regulations for the useful\nlife of the pipeline.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. 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; the Respondent's\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $120,000 for the violations cited above.\nItem IA: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $37,900 for Respondent's violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 192.907(a), for failing to follow its written integrity management program by the\nDecember 17, 2004, deadline. NiSource neither contested the allegation nor presented any\nevidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$37,900 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.907(a).\n\n\n\n5\nItem 2A: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $23,200 for Respondent's violation of 49\nC.F.R. $ 192.911, for failing to have a baseline assessment plan meeting the requirements of\n$ 192.921. NiSource neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument\njustifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $23,200 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.911.\nItem 3A: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $23,200 for Respondent's violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 192.933(a), for failing to either take prompt action to address all anomalous conditions\ndiscovered through integrity assessments or reduce operating pressure. NiSource neither\ncontested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the\nproposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $23,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(a).\nItem 3B: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $23,200 for Respondent's violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 192.933(b), for failing to determine that a condition was a potential threat to the\nintegrity of the pipeline. NiSource neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or\nargument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $23,200 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(b).\nItem 4A: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $12,500 for Respondent's violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 192.947, for failing to maintain records that demonstrate compliance with the\nrequirements of the Gas Transmission Pipeline Integrity Management regulations for the useful\nlife of the pipeline. NiSource neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or\nargument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $12,500 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.947.\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 $120,000, which amount has\nalready been paid by Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 2A in the Notice for violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 192.921(a). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director indicates that\nRespondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance order:\nWith respect to the violation of § 192.921(a) (Item 2A), NiSource provided\nPHMSA with documentation substantiating that it revised its baseline assessment\nplan to include appropriate assessment methods to address stress corrosion\ncracking (SCC). NiSource submitted a schedule for completion of the integrity\nassessments for all pipeline segments that meet the B31.8S criteria for SCC.\nNiSource maintained documentation of the safety improvement costs associated\nwith the compliance order and submitted the total to the Director, Central Region,\nPHMSA.\n\n\n\n6\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,\nthe compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. $ 190.5.\nDullese\nNOV 1 62010\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nDate Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n320091018_Final Order_11162010_text.pdf\n\nNOV 16 2010\nMr. Victor M. Gaglio\nSenior Vice President, Operations\nNiSource Gas Transmission and Storage\n1700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE\nCharleston, WV 25301\nRe: CPF No. 3-2009-1018\nDear Mr. Gaglio:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $120,000, acknowledges your payment of the penalty by\nwire transfer, and finds that NiSource Gas Transmission has completed the actions specified in\nthe Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. This enforcement action is now\nclosed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing,\nor as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Chad Zamarin, Director, Integrity Management, NiSource Gas Transmission\nand Storage, 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, TX 77056\nMr. David Barrett, Director, Central Region, PHMSA (by email)\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0041 0640]\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)\nNiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, ) CPF No. 3-2009-1018\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn July 17-21 and August 1-3, 2006, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, the New York Department of Public Service, and\nthe West Virginia Public Service Commission inspected the integrity management plan and\nprocedures of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage (NiSource or Respondent) in Charleston,\nWest Virginia. NiSource operates over 15,000 miles of natural gas pipelines including Columbia\nGas Transmission, Columbia Gulf Transmission, Crossroads Pipeline, and Granite State Gas\nTransmission operations.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated August 20, 2009, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that NiSource had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $120,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nNiSource responded to the Notice by letter dated September 24, 2009 (Response). The company\ndid not contest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $120,000, as\nprovided in 49 C.F.R. § 190.227. Payment of the penalty serves to close the case with prejudice\nto Respondent.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, NiSource did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 192, as follows:\nItem 1A: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.907(a), which states in\nrelevant part:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 192.907(a) What must an operator do to implement this subpart?\n(a) General. No later than December 17, 2004, an operator of a\ncovered pipeline segment must develop and follow a written integrity\nmanagement program that contains all the elements described in § 192.911\nand that addresses the risks on each covered transmission pipeline\nsegment.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.907(a) by failing to follow its\nwritten integrity management program including all elements specified in § 192.911. Section\n192.911(a) requires that the integrity management program include an identification of all high\nconsequence areas (HCAs). Specifically, the Notice alleged that NiSource did not identify all\nthe HCA locations along its 12-inch UM10 (Ashland, KY) pipeline system by the December 17,\n2004, deadline. Three additional HCAs were identified at the time of the inspection in 2006.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.907(a) by failing to follow its\nwritten integrity management program and identify all HCAs by the December 17, 2004,\ndeadline.\nItem 2A: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911,\nwhich states in relevant part:\n§ 192.911 What are the elements of an integrity management\nprogram?\n…. The initial [integrity management] program framework and\nsubsequent program must, at minimum, contain the following elements….\n(b) A baseline assessment plan meeting the requirements of § 192.919\nand § 192.921.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911 by failing to have a baseline\nassessment plan meeting the requirements of § 192.921. Section 192.921(a) requires that an\noperator select the method or methods of assessment best suited to address the threats identified\nto the covered segment. Specifically, the Notice alleged that NiSource’s baseline assessment\nplan did not include assessment methods that address stress corrosion cracking (SCC) despite\nhaving identified several covered pipeline segments that met the ASME B31.8S criteria for SCC.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911 by failing to have a baseline\nassessment plan that included assessment methods suited to address all identified threats in\naccordance with the requirements of § 192.921.\nItem 3A: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(a), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.933 What actions must be taken to address integrity issues?\n(a) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to\naddress all anomalous conditions the operator discovers through the\nintegrity assessment. In addressing all conditions, an operator must\nevaluate all anomalous conditions and remediate those that could reduce a\npipeline's integrity….\n\n\n\n3\n(1) Temporary pressure reduction. If an operator is unable to\nrespond within the time limits for certain conditions specified in this\nsection, the operator must temporarily reduce the operating pressure of the\npipeline or take other action that ensures the safety of the covered\nsegment…. An operator must notify PHMSA in accordance with\n§ 192.949 if it cannot meet the schedule for evaluation and remediation\nrequired under paragraph (c) of this section and cannot provide safety\nthrough temporary reduction in operating pressure or other action….\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(a) by failing to either take\nprompt action to address all anomalous conditions discovered through integrity assessments or\nreduce operating pressure. Specifically, the Notice alleged that on two occasions NiSource did\nnot immediately remediate conditions that required immediate repair under § 192.933(d), did not\nreduce the operating pressure or take other action to ensure the safety of the covered segment,\nand did not notify PHMSA that it could not meet the schedule for remediation or take other\naction to provide safety. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly,\nbased upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.933(a) by failing to either take prompt action to address all anomalous\nconditions discovered through integrity assessments or reduce operating pressure.\nItem 3B: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(b),\nwhich states in relevant part:\n§ 192.933 What actions must be taken to address integrity issues?\n(a) ….\n(b) Discovery of condition. Discovery of a condition occurs when an\noperator has adequate information about a condition to determine that the\ncondition presents a potential threat to the integrity of the pipeline…. An\noperator must promptly, but no later than 180 days after conducting an\nintegrity assessment, obtain sufficient information about a condition to\nmake that determination, unless the operator demonstrates that the 180-\nday period is impracticable.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(b) by failing to promptly\nassess available information and make a determination that a condition was a potential threat to\nthe integrity of the pipeline. Specifically, the Notice alleged that NiSource did not promptly\ndetermine that there were conditions requiring immediate repair following the June 29, 2004,\ninternal inspection of the VB LOOP line even though the final inspection report was made\navailable to NiSource on August 8, 2004, and contained sufficient information to make that\ndetermination. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon\na review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(b) by failing\nto promptly assess available information and make a determination that a condition was a\npotential threat to the integrity of the pipeline.\nItem 4A: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.947, which states:\n\n\n\n4\n§ 192.947 What records must an operator keep?\nAn operator must maintain, for the useful life of the pipeline, records that\ndemonstrate compliance with the requirements of [Subpart O]. At\nminimum, an operator must maintain the following records for review\nduring an inspection.\n(a) ….\n(d) Documents to support any decision, analysis and process\ndeveloped and used to implement and evaluate each element of the\nbaseline assessment plan and integrity management program. Documents\ninclude those developed and used in support of any identification,\ncalculation, amendment, modification, justification, deviation and\ndetermination made, and any action taken to implement and evaluate any\nof the program elements.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.947 by failing to maintain records\nthat demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the Gas Transmission Pipeline Integrity\nManagement regulations for the useful life of the pipeline. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nNiSource could not produce the dig/repair reports for two immediate repair conditions that were\nreported to have been addressed in November 2004. Respondent did not contest this allegation\nof violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 192.947 by failing to maintain records that demonstrate compliance with the\nrequirements of the Gas Transmission Pipeline Integrity Management regulations for the useful\nlife of the pipeline.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. 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; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $120,000 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1A: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $37,900 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 192.907(a), for failing to follow its written integrity management program by the\nDecember 17, 2004, deadline. NiSource neither contested the allegation nor presented any\nevidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$37,900 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.907(a).\n\n\n\n5\nItem 2A: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $23,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 192.911, for failing to have a baseline assessment plan meeting the requirements of\n§ 192.921. NiSource neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument\njustifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $23,200 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.911.\nItem 3A: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $23,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 192.933(a), for failing to either take prompt action to address all anomalous conditions\ndiscovered through integrity assessments or reduce operating pressure. NiSource neither\ncontested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the\nproposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $23,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(a).\nItem 3B: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $23,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 192.933(b), for failing to determine that a condition was a potential threat to the\nintegrity of the pipeline. NiSource neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or\nargument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $23,200 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(b).\nItem 4A: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $12,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 192.947, for failing to maintain records that demonstrate compliance with the\nrequirements of the Gas Transmission Pipeline Integrity Management regulations for the useful\nlife of the pipeline. NiSource neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or\nargument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $12,500 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.947.\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 $120,000, which amount has\nalready been paid by Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 2A in the Notice for violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 192.921(a). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director indicates that\nRespondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance order:\nWith respect to the violation of § 192.921(a) (Item 2A), NiSource provided\nPHMSA with documentation substantiating that it revised its baseline assessment\nplan to include appropriate assessment methods to address stress corrosion\ncracking (SCC). NiSource submitted a schedule for completion of the integrity\nassessments for all pipeline segments that meet the B31.8S criteria for SCC.\nNiSource maintained documentation of the safety improvement costs associated\nwith the compliance order and submitted the total to the Director, Central Region,\nPHMSA.\n\n\n\n6\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,\nthe compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\n____________________________ _____________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n320091018_NOPV PCP PCO_08202009_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nAugust 20, 2009\nMr. Victor Gaglio\nSenior Vice President, Operations\nNiSource Gas Transmission and Storage\n1700 MacCorkle Ave. SE\nCharleston, WV 25301\nCPF 3-2009-1018\nDear Mr. Gaglio:\nOn July 17-21, 2006 and August 1-3, 2006, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Ohio Public Utilities Commission, New York\nDepartment of Public Service, and the West Virginia Public Service Commission pursuant to\nChapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected the NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage\n(NiSource) integrity management plan and procedures in Charleston, West Virginia. The\nintegrity management (IM) plan and procedures are applicable to the Columbia Gas\nTransmission, Columbia Gulf Transmission, Crossroads Pipeline and Granite State Gas\nTransmission operations.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and\nthe probable violations are:\n§192.911 What are the elements of an integrity management program?\n\n\n\nAn operator's initial integrity management program begins with a framework (see\n§192.907) and evolves into a more detailed and comprehensive integrity management\nprogram, as information is gained and incorporated into the program. An operator\nmust make continual improvements to its program. The initial program framework and\nsubsequent program must, at minimum, contain the following elements. (When\nindicated, refer to ASME/ANSI B31.8S (ibr, see §192.7) for more detailed information\non the listed element.)\n1. §192.911(a) An identification of all high consequence areas, in accordance with\n§192.905.\n§192.905(b)(1) Identified sites. An operator must identify an identified site, for\npurposes of this subpart, from information the operator has obtained from\nroutine operation and maintenance activities and from public officials with safety\nor emergency response or planning responsibilities who indicate to the operator\nthat they know of locations that meet the identified site criteria. These public\nofficials could include officials on a local emergency planning commission or\nrelevant Native American tribal officials.\n(2) If a public official with safety or emergency response or planning\nresponsibilities informs an operator that it does not have the information to\nidentify an identified site, the operator must use one of the following sources, as\nappropriate, to identify these sites.\n(i) Visible marking (e.g., a sign); or\n(ii) The site is licensed or registered by a Federal, State, or local government\nagency; or\n(iii) The site is on a list (including a list on an internet web site) or map\nmaintained by or available from a Federal, State, or local government agency\nand available to the general public.\nItem 1A. §192.907(a) General. No later than December 17, 2004, an operator of\na covered pipeline segment must develop and follow a written integrity\nmanagement program that contains all the elements described in §192.911 and\nthat addresses the risks on each covered transmission pipeline segment. The\ninitial integrity management program must consist, at a minimum, of a\nframework that describes the process for implementing each program element,\nhow relevant 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 must\nmake continual improvements to the program.\nNiSource did not identify all the high consequence area (HCA) locations along its\npipeline system as required. HCA identification was not completed for the 12-inch\nUM10 (Ashland, KY) pipeline by the 12/17/2004 deadline. Identified sites are located\n2\n\n\n\nin close proximity to the pipeline, yet an evaluation using the potential impact radius\n(PIR) to identify HCAs was not completed for these locations. Between the two\nweeks of the inspection, NiSource measured the distances between the pipeline and\nthe identified sites and defined 3 new HCAs (about 0.3 miles total of new covered\nsegments, risk-ranked in the bottom 50%) on this pipeline.\n2. §192.911(b) A baseline assessment plan meeting the requirements of §192.919\nand §192.921.\nItem 2A. §192.921(a) Assessment methods. An operator must assess the integrity\nof the line pipe in each covered segment by applying one or more of the following\nmethods depending on the threats to which the covered segment is susceptible.\nAn operator must select the method or methods best suited to address the threats\nidentified to the covered segment (See §192.917).\nNiSource did not utilize appropriate assessment methods to address the threats\nidentified. Several covered segments (e.g., WBS6-15:545620, VBS2-50:207265)\nwere identified that meet the B31.8S criteria for stress corrosion cracking (SCC). The\nbaseline assessment plan does not include assessment methods that address SCC for\nany of these segments. An assessment on at least one segment that meets the SCC\ncriteria (Columbia Gulf ML 200-27:36220) was reportedly completed, but the in-line\ninspection methods employed did not address SCC. The rule requires that integrity\nassessment methods assess all threats identified for a covered segment.\n3. §192.911(e) Provisions meeting the requirements of §192.933 for remediating\nconditions found during an integrity assessment.\n§192.933(a) What actions must be taken to address integrity issues? General\nrequirements. An operator must take prompt action to address all anomalous\nconditions that the operator discovers through the integrity assessment. In\naddressing all conditions, an operator must evaluate all anomalous conditions\nand remediate those that could reduce a pipeline's integrity. An operator must be\nable to demonstrate that the remediation of the condition will ensure that the\ncondition is unlikely to pose a threat to the integrity of the pipeline until the next\nreassessment of the covered segment. If an operator is unable to respond within\nthe time limit","truncated":true,"body_characters":47577}