# COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

320091018_Final Order  11162010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320091018/320091018_Final%20Order%20%2011162010.pdf

320091018_Final Order_11162010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320091018/320091018_Final%20Order_11162010_text.pdf

320091018_NOPV PCP PCO_08202009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320091018/320091018_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08202009.pdf

320091018_NOPV PCP PCO_08202009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320091018/320091018_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08202009_text.pdf

320091018_Operator Response_09242009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320091018/320091018_Operator%20Response_09242009.pdf

320091018_Final Order  11162010.pdf

U.S. Department
of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20590
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
NOV 1 62010
Mr. Victor M. Gaglio
Senior Vice President, Operations
NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage
1700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE
Charleston, WV 25301
Re: CPF No. 3-2009-1018
Dear Mr. Gaglio:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a civil penalty of $120,000, acknowledges your payment of the penalty by
wire transfer, and finds that NiSource Gas Transmission has completed the actions specified in
the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. This enforcement action is now
closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing,
or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
sincerely,
Bitese
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
Cc:
Mr. Chad Zamarin, Director, Integrity Management, NiSource Gas Transmission
and Storage, 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, TX 77056
Mr. David Barrett, Director, Central Region, PHMSA (by email)
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0041 0640]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
)
In the Matter of
)
)
NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, )
CPF No. 3-2009-1018
)
Respondent.
)
FINAL ORDER
On July 17-21 and August 1-3, 2006, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, the New York Department of Public Service, and
the West Virginia Public Service Commission inspected the integrity management plan and
procedures of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage (NiSource or Respondent) in Charleston,
West Virginia. NiSource operates over 15,000 miles of natural gas pipelines including Columbia
Gas Transmission, Columbia Gulf Transmission, Crossroads Pipeline, and Granite State Gas
Transmission operations.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated August 20, 2009, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and
Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice
proposed finding that NiSource had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and
proposed assessing a civil penalty of $120,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also
proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
NiSource responded to the Notice by letter dated September 24, 2009 (Response). The company
did not contest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $120,000, as
provided in 49 C.F.R. § 190.227. Payment of the penalty serves to close the case with prejudice
to Respondent.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, NiSource did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.
Part 192, as follows:
Item 1A: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.907(a), which states in
relevant part:



2
§ 192.907(a) What must an operator do to implement this subpart?
(a) General. No later than December 17, 2004, an operator of a
covered pipeline segment must develop and follow a written integrity
management program that contains all the elements described in § 192.911
and that addresses the risks on each covered transmission pipeline
segment.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.907(a) by failing to follow its
written integrity management program including all elements specified in § 192.911. Section
192.911(a) requires that the integrity management program include an identification of all high
consequence areas (HCAs). Specifically, the Notice alleged that NiSource did not identify all
the HCA locations along its 12-inch UM10 (Ashland, KY) pipeline system by the December 17,
2004, deadline. Three additional HAs were identified at the time of the inspection in 2006.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.907(a) by failing to follow its
written integrity management program and identify all HAs by the December 17, 2004,
deadline.
Item 2A: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911,
which states in relevant part:
$ 192.911
What are the elements of an integrity management
program?
The initial [integrity management] program framework and
subsequent program must, at minimum, contain the following elements....
(b) A baseline assessment plan meeting the requirements of § 192.919
and § 192.921.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911 by failing to have a baseline
assessment plan meeting the requirements of § 192.921. Section 192.921(a) requires that an
operator select the method or methods of assessment best suited to address the threats identified
to the covered segment. Specifically, the Notice alleged that NiSource's baseline assessment
plan did not include assessment methods that address stress corrosion cracking (SCC) despite
having identified several covered pipeline segments that met the ASME B31.8S criteria for SCC.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911 by failing to have a baseline
assessment plan that included assessment methods suited to address all identified threats in
accordance with the requirements of § 192.921.
Item 3A: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(a), which states in
relevant part:
§ 192.933 What actions must be taken to address integrity issues?
(a) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to
address all anomalous conditions the operator discovers through the
integrity assessment. In addressing all conditions, an operator must
evaluate all anomalous conditions and remediate those that could reduce a
pipeline's integrity....



3
(1) Temporary pressure reduction. If an operator is unable to
respond within the time limits for certain conditions specified in this
section, the operator must temporarily reduce the operating pressure of the
pipeline or take other action that ensures the safety of the covered
segment....
An operator must notify PHMSA in accordance with
§ 192.949 if it cannot meet the schedule for evaluation and remediation
required under paragraph (c) of this section and cannot provide safety
through temporary reduction in operating pressure or other action....
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(a) by failing to either take
prompt action to address all anomalous conditions discovered through integrity assessments or
reduce operating pressure. Specifically, the Notice alleged that on two occasions NiSource did
not immediately remediate conditions that required immediate repair under § 192.933(d), did not
reduce the operating pressure or take other action to ensure the safety of the covered segment,
and did not notify PHMSA that it could not meet the schedule for remediation or take other
action to provide safety. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly,
3 192.933(a) by failing to either take prompt action to address all anomalous
ased upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.F
conditions discovered through integrity assessments or reduce operating pressure.
Item 3B: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(b),
which states in relevant part:
§ 192.933 What actions must be taken to address integrity issues?
(a) ....
(b) Discovery of condition. Discovery of a condition occurs when an
operator has adequate information about a condition to determine that the
condition presents a potential threat to the integrity of the pipeline.... Ar
integrity assessment, obtain sufficient information about a condition to
operator must promptly, but no later than 180 days after conducting ar
make that determination, unless the operator demonstrates that the 180-
day period is impracticable.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(b) by failing to promptly
assess available information and make a determination that a condition was a potential threat to
the integrity of the pipeline. Specifically, the Notice alleged that NiSource did not promptly
determine that there were conditions requiring immediate repair following the June 29, 2004,
internal inspection of the VB LOOP line even though the final inspection report was made
available to NiSource on August 8, 2004, and contained sufficient information to make that
determination. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon
a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(b) by failing
to promptly assess available information and make a determination that a condition was a
potential threat to the integrity of the pipeline.
Item 4A: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.947, which states:



4
$ 192.947 What records must an operator keep?
An operator must maintain, for the useful life of the pipeline, records that
demonstrate compliance with the requirements of [Subpart Ol. At
minimum, an operator must maintain the following records for review
during an inspection.
(a)
(d)
Documents to support any decision, analysis and process
developed and used to implement and evaluate each element of the
baseline assessment plan and integrity management program. Documents
include those developed and used in support of any identification,
calculation, amendment, modification, justification, deviation and
determination made, and any action taken to implement and evaluate any
of the program elements.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.947 by failing to maintain records
that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the Gas Transmission Pipeline Integrity
Management regulations for the useful life of the pipeline. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
NiSource could not produce the dig/repair reports for two immediate repair conditions that were
reported to have been addressed in November 2004. Respondent did not contest this allegation
of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent
violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.947 by failing to maintain records that demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of the Gas Transmission Pipeline Integrity Management regulations for the useful
life of the pipeline.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent's culpability; the history of Respondent's prior offenses; the Respondent's
ability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing
business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without
any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.
The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $120,000 for the violations cited above.
Item IA: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $37,900 for Respondent's violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.907(a), for failing to follow its written integrity management program by the
December 17, 2004, deadline. NiSource neither contested the allegation nor presented any
evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having
reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of
$37,900 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.907(a).



5
Item 2A: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $23,200 for Respondent's violation of 49
C.F.R. $ 192.911, for failing to have a baseline assessment plan meeting the requirements of
$ 192.921. NiSource neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument
justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and
considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $23,200 for violation of
49 C.F.R. § 192.911.
Item 3A: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $23,200 for Respondent's violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.933(a), for failing to either take prompt action to address all anomalous conditions
discovered through integrity assessments or reduce operating pressure. NiSource neither
contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the
proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment
criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $23,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(a).
Item 3B: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $23,200 for Respondent's violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.933(b), for failing to determine that a condition was a potential threat to the
integrity of the pipeline. NiSource neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or
argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the
record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $23,200 for
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(b).
Item 4A: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $12,500 for Respondent's violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.947, for failing to maintain records that demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of the Gas Transmission Pipeline Integrity Management regulations for the useful
life of the pipeline. NiSource neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or
argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the
record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $12,500 for
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.947.
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $120,000, which amount has
already been paid by Respondent.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 2A in the Notice for violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.921(a). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the
transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the
applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director indicates that
Respondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance order:
With respect to the violation of § 192.921(a) (Item 2A), NiSource provided
PHMSA with documentation substantiating that it revised its baseline assessment
plan to include appropriate assessment methods to address stress corrosion
cracking (SCC). NiSource submitted a schedule for completion of the integrity
assessments for all pipeline segments that meet the B31.8S criteria for SCC.
NiSource maintained documentation of the safety improvement costs associated
with the compliance order and submitted the total to the Director, Central Region,
PHMSA.



6
Accordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,
the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. $ 190.5.
Dullese
NOV 1 62010
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

320091018_Final Order_11162010_text.pdf

NOV 16 2010
Mr. Victor M. Gaglio
Senior Vice President, Operations
NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage
1700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE
Charleston, WV 25301
Re: CPF No. 3-2009-1018
Dear Mr. Gaglio:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a civil penalty of $120,000, acknowledges your payment of the penalty by
wire transfer, and finds that NiSource Gas Transmission has completed the actions specified in
the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. This enforcement action is now
closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing,
or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Chad Zamarin, Director, Integrity Management, NiSource Gas Transmission
and Storage, 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, TX 77056
Mr. David Barrett, Director, Central Region, PHMSA (by email)
CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0041 0640]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, ) CPF No. 3-2009-1018
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On July 17-21 and August 1-3, 2006, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, the New York Department of Public Service, and
the West Virginia Public Service Commission inspected the integrity management plan and
procedures of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage (NiSource or Respondent) in Charleston,
West Virginia. NiSource operates over 15,000 miles of natural gas pipelines including Columbia
Gas Transmission, Columbia Gulf Transmission, Crossroads Pipeline, and Granite State Gas
Transmission operations.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated August 20, 2009, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and
Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice
proposed finding that NiSource had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and
proposed assessing a civil penalty of $120,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also
proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
NiSource responded to the Notice by letter dated September 24, 2009 (Response). The company
did not contest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $120,000, as
provided in 49 C.F.R. § 190.227. Payment of the penalty serves to close the case with prejudice
to Respondent.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, NiSource did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.
Part 192, as follows:
Item 1A: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.907(a), which states in
relevant part:



2
§ 192.907(a) What must an operator do to implement this subpart?
(a) General. No later than December 17, 2004, an operator of a
covered pipeline segment must develop and follow a written integrity
management program that contains all the elements described in § 192.911
and that addresses the risks on each covered transmission pipeline
segment.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.907(a) by failing to follow its
written integrity management program including all elements specified in § 192.911. Section
192.911(a) requires that the integrity management program include an identification of all high
consequence areas (HCAs). Specifically, the Notice alleged that NiSource did not identify all
the HCA locations along its 12-inch UM10 (Ashland, KY) pipeline system by the December 17,
2004, deadline. Three additional HCAs were identified at the time of the inspection in 2006.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.907(a) by failing to follow its
written integrity management program and identify all HCAs by the December 17, 2004,
deadline.
Item 2A: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911,
which states in relevant part:
§ 192.911 What are the elements of an integrity management
program?
…. The initial [integrity management] program framework and
subsequent program must, at minimum, contain the following elements….
(b) A baseline assessment plan meeting the requirements of § 192.919
and § 192.921.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911 by failing to have a baseline
assessment plan meeting the requirements of § 192.921. Section 192.921(a) requires that an
operator select the method or methods of assessment best suited to address the threats identified
to the covered segment. Specifically, the Notice alleged that NiSource’s baseline assessment
plan did not include assessment methods that address stress corrosion cracking (SCC) despite
having identified several covered pipeline segments that met the ASME B31.8S criteria for SCC.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.911 by failing to have a baseline
assessment plan that included assessment methods suited to address all identified threats in
accordance with the requirements of § 192.921.
Item 3A: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(a), which states in
relevant part:
§ 192.933 What actions must be taken to address integrity issues?
(a) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to
address all anomalous conditions the operator discovers through the
integrity assessment. In addressing all conditions, an operator must
evaluate all anomalous conditions and remediate those that could reduce a
pipeline's integrity….



3
(1) Temporary pressure reduction. If an operator is unable to
respond within the time limits for certain conditions specified in this
section, the operator must temporarily reduce the operating pressure of the
pipeline or take other action that ensures the safety of the covered
segment…. An operator must notify PHMSA in accordance with
§ 192.949 if it cannot meet the schedule for evaluation and remediation
required under paragraph (c) of this section and cannot provide safety
through temporary reduction in operating pressure or other action….
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(a) by failing to either take
prompt action to address all anomalous conditions discovered through integrity assessments or
reduce operating pressure. Specifically, the Notice alleged that on two occasions NiSource did
not immediately remediate conditions that required immediate repair under § 192.933(d), did not
reduce the operating pressure or take other action to ensure the safety of the covered segment,
and did not notify PHMSA that it could not meet the schedule for remediation or take other
action to provide safety. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly,
based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.933(a) by failing to either take prompt action to address all anomalous
conditions discovered through integrity assessments or reduce operating pressure.
Item 3B: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(b),
which states in relevant part:
§ 192.933 What actions must be taken to address integrity issues?
(a) ….
(b) Discovery of condition. Discovery of a condition occurs when an
operator has adequate information about a condition to determine that the
condition presents a potential threat to the integrity of the pipeline…. An
operator must promptly, but no later than 180 days after conducting an
integrity assessment, obtain sufficient information about a condition to
make that determination, unless the operator demonstrates that the 180-
day period is impracticable.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(b) by failing to promptly
assess available information and make a determination that a condition was a potential threat to
the integrity of the pipeline. Specifically, the Notice alleged that NiSource did not promptly
determine that there were conditions requiring immediate repair following the June 29, 2004,
internal inspection of the VB LOOP line even though the final inspection report was made
available to NiSource on August 8, 2004, and contained sufficient information to make that
determination. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon
a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(b) by failing
to promptly assess available information and make a determination that a condition was a
potential threat to the integrity of the pipeline.
Item 4A: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.947, which states:



4
§ 192.947 What records must an operator keep?
An operator must maintain, for the useful life of the pipeline, records that
demonstrate compliance with the requirements of [Subpart O]. At
minimum, an operator must maintain the following records for review
during an inspection.
(a) ….
(d) Documents to support any decision, analysis and process
developed and used to implement and evaluate each element of the
baseline assessment plan and integrity management program. Documents
include those developed and used in support of any identification,
calculation, amendment, modification, justification, deviation and
determination made, and any action taken to implement and evaluate any
of the program elements.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.947 by failing to maintain records
that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the Gas Transmission Pipeline Integrity
Management regulations for the useful life of the pipeline. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
NiSource could not produce the dig/repair reports for two immediate repair conditions that were
reported to have been addressed in November 2004. Respondent did not contest this allegation
of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent
violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.947 by failing to maintain records that demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of the Gas Transmission Pipeline Integrity Management regulations for the useful
life of the pipeline.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s
ability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing
business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without
any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.
The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $120,000 for the violations cited above.
Item 1A: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $37,900 for Respondent’s violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.907(a), for failing to follow its written integrity management program by the
December 17, 2004, deadline. NiSource neither contested the allegation nor presented any
evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having
reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of
$37,900 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.907(a).



5
Item 2A: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $23,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.911, for failing to have a baseline assessment plan meeting the requirements of
§ 192.921. NiSource neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument
justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and
considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $23,200 for violation of
49 C.F.R. § 192.911.
Item 3A: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $23,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.933(a), for failing to either take prompt action to address all anomalous conditions
discovered through integrity assessments or reduce operating pressure. NiSource neither
contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the
proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment
criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $23,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(a).
Item 3B: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $23,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.933(b), for failing to determine that a condition was a potential threat to the
integrity of the pipeline. NiSource neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or
argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the
record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $23,200 for
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.933(b).
Item 4A: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $12,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.947, for failing to maintain records that demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of the Gas Transmission Pipeline Integrity Management regulations for the useful
life of the pipeline. NiSource neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or
argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the
record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $12,500 for
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.947.
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $120,000, which amount has
already been paid by Respondent.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 2A in the Notice for violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.921(a). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the
transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the
applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director indicates that
Respondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance order:
With respect to the violation of § 192.921(a) (Item 2A), NiSource provided
PHMSA with documentation substantiating that it revised its baseline assessment
plan to include appropriate assessment methods to address stress corrosion
cracking (SCC). NiSource submitted a schedule for completion of the integrity
assessments for all pipeline segments that meet the B31.8S criteria for SCC.
NiSource maintained documentation of the safety improvement costs associated
with the compliance order and submitted the total to the Director, Central Region,
PHMSA.



6
Accordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,
the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
____________________________ _____________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

320091018_NOPV PCP PCO_08202009_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
August 20, 2009
Mr. Victor Gaglio
Senior Vice President, Operations
NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage
1700 MacCorkle Ave. SE
Charleston, WV 25301
CPF 3-2009-1018
Dear Mr. Gaglio:
On July 17-21, 2006 and August 1-3, 2006, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Ohio Public Utilities Commission, New York
Department of Public Service, and the West Virginia Public Service Commission pursuant to
Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected the NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage
(NiSource) integrity management plan and procedures in Charleston, West Virginia. The
integrity management (IM) plan and procedures are applicable to the Columbia Gas
Transmission, Columbia Gulf Transmission, Crossroads Pipeline and Granite State Gas
Transmission operations.
As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and
the probable violations are:
§192.911 What are the elements of an integrity management program?



An operator's initial integrity management program begins with a framework (see
§192.907) and evolves into a more detailed and comprehensive integrity management
program, as information is gained and incorporated into the program. An operator
must make continual improvements to its program. The initial program framework and
subsequent program must, at minimum, contain the following elements. (When
indicated, refer to ASME/ANSI B31.8S (ibr, see §192.7) for more detailed information
on the listed element.)
1. §192.911(a) An identification of all high consequence areas, in accordance with
§192.905.
§192.905(b)(1) Identified sites. An operator must identify an identified site, for
purposes of this subpart, from information the operator has obtained from
routine operation and maintenance activities and from public officials with safety
or emergency response or planning responsibilities who indicate to the operator
that they know of locations that meet the identified site criteria. These public
officials could include officials on a local emergency planning commission or
relevant Native American tribal officials.
(2) If a public official with safety or emergency response or planning
responsibilities informs an operator that it does not have the information to
identify an identified site, the operator must use one of the following sources, as
appropriate, to identify these sites.
(i) Visible marking (e.g., a sign); or
(ii) The site is licensed or registered by a Federal, State, or local government
agency; or
(iii) The site is on a list (including a list on an internet web site) or map
maintained by or available from a Federal, State, or local government agency
and available to the general public.
Item 1A. §192.907(a) General. No later than December 17, 2004, an operator of
a covered pipeline segment must develop and follow a written integrity
management program that contains all the elements described in §192.911 and
that addresses the risks on each covered transmission pipeline segment. The
initial integrity management program must consist, at a minimum, of a
framework that describes the process for implementing each program element,
how relevant decisions will be made and by whom, a time line for completing the
work to implement the program element, and how information gained from
experience will be continuously incorporated into the program. The framework
will evolve into a more detailed and comprehensive program. An operator must
make continual improvements to the program.
NiSource did not identify all the high consequence area (HCA) locations along its
pipeline system as required. HCA identification was not completed for the 12-inch
UM10 (Ashland, KY) pipeline by the 12/17/2004 deadline. Identified sites are located
2



in close proximity to the pipeline, yet an evaluation using the potential impact radius
(PIR) to identify HCAs was not completed for these locations. Between the two
weeks of the inspection, NiSource measured the distances between the pipeline and
the identified sites and defined 3 new HCAs (about 0.3 miles total of new covered
segments, risk-ranked in the bottom 50%) on this pipeline.
2. §192.911(b) A baseline assessment plan meeting the requirements of §192.919
and §192.921.
Item 2A. §192.921(a) Assessment methods. An operator must assess the integrity
of the line pipe in each covered segment by applying one or more of the following
methods depending on the threats to which the covered segment is susceptible.
An operator must select the method or methods best suited to address the threats
identified to the covered segment (See §192.917).
NiSource did not utilize appropriate assessment methods to address the threats
identified. Several covered segments (e.g., WBS6-15:545620, VBS2-50:207265)
were identified that meet the B31.8S criteria for stress corrosion cracking (SCC). The
baseline assessment plan does not include assessment methods that address SCC for
any of these segments. An assessment on at least one segment that meets the SCC
criteria (Columbia Gulf ML 200-27:36220) was reportedly completed, but the in-line
inspection methods employed did not address SCC. The rule requires that integrity
assessment methods assess all threats identified for a covered segment.
3. §192.911(e) Provisions meeting the requirements of §192.933 for remediating
conditions found during an integrity assessment.
§192.933(a) What actions must be taken to address integrity issues? General
requirements. An operator must take prompt action to address all anomalous
conditions that the operator discovers through the integrity assessment. In
addressing all conditions, an operator must evaluate all anomalous conditions
and remediate those that could reduce a pipeline's integrity. An operator must be
able to demonstrate that the remediation of the condition will ensure that the
condition is unlikely to pose a threat to the integrity of the pipeline until the next
reassessment of the covered segment. If an operator is unable to respond within
the time limit
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 47577