COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

party submissionOfficial PDF320151007_Operator Response to Notice_07172015.pdf#

320151007_NOPV PCP PCO_05282015_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY and PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED May 28, 2015 Mr. Robert Kitchell Vice President-Operations Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC 1700 McCorkle Avenue, S.E. Charleston, West Virginia 25314 CPF 3-2015-1007 Dear Mr. Kitchell: On various dates between January and August of 2014, representatives of the Ohio Public Utilities Commission acting as interstate agents for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected your records and facilities throughout the State of Ohio. 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: 1. §191.17 Transmission systems, gathering systems, and liquefied natural gas facilities. Annual report. (a) Transmission or Gathering. Each operator of a transmission or a gathering pipeline system must submit an annual report for that system on DOT Form PHMSA 7100.2.1. This report must be submitted each year, not later than March 15, for the preceding calendar year, except that for the 2010 reporting year the report must be submitted by June 15, 2011.#

320151007_NOPV PCP PCO_05282015_text.pdf, page 2Columbia Gas Transmission (CGT) did not report on the 2013 annual report two newly constructed pipelines that were in operation in 2013. Lines R443 and A120 are two new plastic pipelines that were completed and operational in 2013. Review of the 2013 annual report found that neither of the two pipelines was reported. 2. §192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring. (d) Each operator shall take prompt remedial action to correct any deficiencies indicated by the monitoring. In the Cambridge and Meigs operating area, CGT did not promptly remediate two deficient cathodic protection readings. Review of the cathodic protection records identified two low potential readings on Line V148 for 2012 and 2013. The readings in the records are as follows: Test Point Date Reading Asset 874156 6/26/2012 -0.740v 3/26/2013 -0.810v Asset 874147 6/26/2012 -0.800v 3/26/2013 -0.830v No other records were produced to show that any remedial actions were taken from 3/26/2013 until the end of the 2013 calendar year. 3. §192.479 Atmospheric corrosion control – General (a) Each operator must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this section. CGT did not clean and coat the soil to air interface at multiple exposures on Lines V138, H107, and H87. During the records review, there were multiple exposures that were scheduled for remediation on Line H107 and H87, but did not occur by the due date. Subsequent field visits to the exposures on both lines verified that no action had been taken at the soil to air interface to clean and coat the exposed pipelines. The following exposures with the soil/air interface issues noted during the field review are as follows: 1) Asset 1369681 for Line V138 (Identified by CGT on March 13, 2006) 2) Asset 1370688 for Line V138 (Identified by CGT on March 27, 2007) 2#

320151007_NOPV PCP PCO_05282015_text.pdf, page 3During the records review, the following exposures for line H107 did not receive any remedial actions to address the soil to air interface. All of these exposures except Assets 1566279 and 1566280 should have been addressed by the time of this field inspection. Assets 1566279 and 1566280 had a scheduled completion date of July 1, 2014, which was less than a month from the time of the field review. The subsequent field review of the field exposures on Line H107 verified that no action had been taken: 1) Asset 906165 (Identified by CGT on April 27, 2012)* 2) Asset 906166 (Unknown)* 3) Asset 906167 (Identified by CGT on April 27, 2012)* 4) Asset 906168 (Identified by CGT on April 27, 2012)* 5) Asset 906169 (Identified by CGT on April 27, 2012)* 6) Asset 906170 (Identified by CGT on April 27, 2012)* 7) Asset 906171 (Identified by CGT on April 27, 2012)* 8) Asset 906172 (Identified by CGT on April 27, 2012)* 9) Asset 906173 (Identified by CGT on April 27, 2012)* 10) Asset 1548046 (Identified by CGT on May 1, 2012) 11) Asset 1548047 (Identified by CGT on May 1, 2012) 12) Asset 1566279 (Identified by CGT on July 2, 2013)* 13) Asset 1566280 (Identified by CGT on July 2, 2013)* 14) Asset 1566281 (Identified by CGT on July 2, 2013) *Verified in the field that no remedial action was taken. The records review found that the following exposures on Line H87 had not received any remedial actions at the soil to air interface: 1) Asset 906159 (Identified by CGT on April 10, 2012) 2) Asset 906160 (Identified by CGT on April 10, 2012) 3) Asset 1547598 (Identified by CGT on April 11, 2012) 4) Asset 1559935 (Identified by CGT on January 30, 2013) 5) Asset 1559937 (Identified by CGT on January 30, 2013) 6) Asset 1559938 (Identified by CGT on January 30, 2013) After the inspection, CGT personnel indicated that a project scope to replace 8,612 feet of Line H107 and 2,600 feet of Line H87 was developed. These replacements would address these exposures. However, CGT could not indicate when those projects would occur. This probable violation is a repeat violation of CPF 3-2010-1005, Item #2. 4. §192.619 Maximum allowable operating pressure - Steel or plastic pipelines (a) No person may operate a segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a pressure that exceeds a maximum allowable operating pressure determined under paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, or the lowest of the following: 3#

320151007_NOPV PCP PCO_05282015_text.pdf, page 4(1) The design pressure of the weakest element in the segment, determined in accordance with subparts C and D of this part. However, for steel pipe in pipelines being converted under §192.14 or uprated under subpart K of this part, if any variable necessary to determine the design pressure under the design formula (§192.105) is unknown, one of the following pressures is to be used as design pressure CGT failed to have their maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) established according to the design pressure of the weakest element in their segment. During the records review of the regulator inspections at Nicodemus regulator station, it was noted that the Fisher 627M regulators had a ¼” orifice in them. Review of the manufacturer specifications found that the ¼” orifice had a maximum inlet pressure of 750 psig. The MAOP of the pipeline that feeds this station is 800 psig. As a result, CGT personnel changed out the orifice to maintain the 800 psig MAOP and conducted a review of other stations to ensure that there were no other inappropriately sized orifices. 5. §192.707 Line markers for mains and transmission lines. (c) Pipelines above ground. Line markers must be placed and maintained along each section of a main and transmission line that is located aboveground in an area accessible to the public. CGT did not have line markers at two locations where their pipeline was aboveground and accessible to the public. During the field review of Line V-138, two aboveground exposures were observed. The exposures are not located in a restricted area and are accessible by the public. Neither of the exposures had any line markers near them. The exposures noted are as follows: For line V -138: 1) Asset 1369681 2) Asset 1370688 6. §192.905 How does an operator identify a high consequence area? (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. CGT did not properly identify two high consequence areas (HCA) on Line B108 from Marten Park in Lancaster, Ohio, to the State Route 188 regulator station.4#

320151007_NOPV PCP PCO_05282015_text.pdf, page 5During the field evaluation of Line B108 in the Treat operating area, two identified sites were noted on the line. The two sites noted are the Anchor Hocking Glass Company and the Martins Park Ball Field. Line B108 is an 8” diameter line with an MAOP of 125 psig. The potential impact radius (PIR) calculates to approximately 120 feet. Both these sites fall within that PIR and were present before 2004. Originally, CGT added the Anchor Hocking building as an HCA but it was eliminated in 2006 because they determined that there were not twenty people within the PIR where the radius intersected the plant. However, this facility should have stayed on the HCA list because if any portion of a building containing twenty people for the time periods specified in the rule is within the PIR, that building should be treated as an identified site. CGT did add this site to the HCA list in 2013. CGT could not provide an explanation of why the Martins Park Ball Field was not put on the HCA list prior to 2013. In 2013, CGT added this site to the HCA list. However, it was subsequently removed in 2015 because CGT’s research on February 26, 2015, found that the park only met the criteria for the number of people for thirty-six days per year. However, when our inspector talked to the manager of Martins Park Ball Field on March 3, 2015, he indicated that they have four ball diamonds with about thirty kids on each diamond, not including the crowd. He also indicated that this occurred more than fifty days annually, since games are played on the fields Monday through Saturday from May to August. It appears that this site should stay on the HCA list. Proposed Civil Penalty Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $168,300 as follows: Item number PENALTY 2 $33,300 3 $83,600 6 $51,400 Warning Items With respect to items one (1) and five (5), we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these item(s). Failure to do so may result in additional enforcement action. 5#

320151007_NOPV PCP PCO_05282015_text.pdf, page 6Proposed Compliance Order With respect to items three (3) and five (5) pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice. Response to this Notice Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within thirty (30) days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order. In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2015-1007 and for each document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible. Sincerely, Allan C. Beshore Director, Central Region, OPS Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings 6#

320151007_NOPV PCP PCO_05282015_text.pdf, page 7PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC with the pipeline safety regulations: 1. 2. 3. 4. In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to cleaning and coating the soil to interface areas of the exposures on Lines V138, H107, and H87, CGT must provide and implement a plan to address the two exposures identified on Line V138 in this Notice, and any other exposures on this line. Regarding Lines H107 and H87, CGT must submit a schedule of when ProTool 15740 (Replacement Scope for H107) and ProTool 17252 (Replacement Scope for H87) will be implemented and completed. In regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to having no line markers on the exposures, CGT must identify all exposures in the Meigs and Cambridge operating areas and install appropriate line markers at these locations as well as the two sites identified in this Notice. In regards to Item number 1 of the Proposed Compliance Order (PCO), CGT must provide a copy of the plan for remedial action on the exposures for Line V138 within 30 days of the receipt of the Final Order and complete all work described in the plans within one year from the receipt of the Final Order. In regards to H107 and H87, the replacement schedule must be submitted within 30 days of the receipt of the Final Order. Completion of the replacements must be done no later than one year from the receipt of the Final Order. In regards to Item number 2 of the PCO, CGT must complete the identification and installation of the line markers within 180 days from the receipt of the Final Order. It is requested (not mandated) that Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region OPS, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure. 7#

320151007_Final Order_09302016_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFSeptember 30, 2016 Mr. Robert C. Skaggs, Jr. Chairman and CEO Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc. 5151 San Felipe Street, Suite 2500 Houston, Texas 77056 Re: CPF No. 3-2015-1007 Dear Mr. Skaggs: Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violations, assesses a civil penalty of $168,300, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, a subsidiary of Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc. to comply with the Federal pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Central Region, this enforcement action will be 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, Alan K. Mayberry Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Mr. Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region, OPS Mr. Perry Michael Hoffman, Manager – System Integrity, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE, Charleston, West Virginia 25314 Assistant General Counsel Diane Neal, Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc., 5151 San Felipe Street, Suite 2400, Houston, Texas 77056 CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED#

320151007_Final Order_09302016_text.pdf, page 2U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 __________________________________________ In the Matter of ) Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2015-1007 a subsidiary of Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc., ) ) ) ) Respondent. ) __________________________________________) FINAL ORDER On various dates between January 2014 and August 2014, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Ohio Public Utilities Commission (OH-PUC), acting as interstate agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), inspected the facilities and records of Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (CGT or Respondent), throughout the State of Ohio. CGT, a subsidiary of Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc., transports an average of three billion cubic feet of natural gas per day through approximately 11,307 miles of pipelines across 10 states.1 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated June 3, 2015, 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 CGT had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.465, 192.479, 192.707, 192.905, and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $168,300 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations and advised CGT to promptly correct two warnings items or face future potential enforcement action. CGT responded to the Notice by letter dated July 17, 2015 (Response). The company contested one allegation of violation and requested that the proposed civil penalty for that Item be withdrawn. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one. FINDINGS OF VIOLATION The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows: 1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (05/27/2015) (Violation Report), (on file with PHMSA), at 1. See also Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc., Our Companies – Columbia Gas Transmission, website: https://www.cpg.com/about-us/our- companies, (last accessed on February 28, 2016).#

320151007_Final Order_09302016_text.pdf, page 3CPF No. 3-2015-1007 Page 2 Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d), which states: § 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring. (a) Each pipeline that is under cathodic protection must be tested at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine whether the cathodic protection meets the requirements of § 192.463. However, if tests at those intervals are impractical for separately protected short sections of mains or transmission lines, not in excess of 100 feet (30 meters), or separately protected service lines, these pipelines may be surveyed on a sampling basis. At least 10 percent of these protected structures, distributed over the entire system must be surveyed each calendar year, with a different 10 percent checked each subsequent year, so that the entire system is tested in each 10-year period. . . . (d) Each operator shall take prompt remedial action to correct any deficiencies indicated by the monitoring. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d) by failing to promptly correct deficient cathodic protection (CP) readings. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CGT’s cathodic protection records for its Cambridge and Meigs operating areas in Ohio identified two sets of deficient CP readings on Line V148 – one set taken on June 26, 2012, and one on March 26, 2013. The Notice alleged that CGT failed to take proper action to correct the deficient readings until the end of the 2013 calendar year. Respondent contested this allegation of violation, asserting that it did take appropriate action to correct CP readings on Line V148. The company stated that in September 2012, it installed additional CP on the line and that by March 26, 2013, the readings had improved.2 It further stated that “[f]ollowing the readings collected in March of 2013, Columbia again installed additional cathodic protection to bring the pipeline back into compliance with CP criteria.”3 To support its argument, CGT produced an affidavit from a former employee, stating that additional CP had been installed at these locations in September 2012, and that by March 2013 the readings had improved.4 I am unconvinced that the actions taken by CGT after June 26, 2012, “promptly” corrected the deficient CP readings, as required under § 192.465(d). First, the CP readings taken in June 2012 and then again in March 2013 remained deficient and below the criteria set in Part 192, Appendix D. The company never presented any proof that additional readings were taken between June 2012 and the end of calendar year 2013, or that they ever fell below the -0.85V 2 Response, at 2 – 3. 3 Id., at 3. 4 Id., at Attachment A. “The affidavit stated that “the readings on Asset 874156 changed from -0.74V to -0.81V and the readings at Asset 874147 changed from -0.800 to -0.830V...”#

320151007_Final Order_09302016_text.pdf, page 4CPF No. 3-2015-1007 Page 3 criterion for steel pipe (as set forth in Appendix D). Furthermore, CGT never presented any evidence that the readings met any other applicable minimum CP criteria. In fact, the deficiencies continued to exist from June 2012 to the end of 2013, which exceeded the 15-month inspection interval during which operators are expected to correct any known deficiencies. Second, the affidavit of CGT’s former employee did not purport to show that the CP deficiencies had ever been fully corrected, but indicated, rather, that mitigative actions taken after the June 2012 readings had improved, but not corrected, the deficiencies. Third, the company was unable to produce any actual records showing what specific corrective actions were taken after June 26, 2012, when such actions were taken, or whether the low readings were ever fully corrected within 15 months from the time the deficiencies were first identified. Finally, I would note that this issue is not new to CGT. The company’s enforcement history includes at least one prior finding of violation for failing to correct CP deficiencies within the 15- month inspection interval and failing to produce proper documentation for the remedial actions it did take.5 This finding is also consistent with other PHMSA final orders, where proper documentation was needed to show the adequacy of an operator’s corrective actions.6 Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated § 192.465(d) by failing to promptly correct two sets of deficient CP readings on Line V148. Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a), which states: § 192.479 Atmospheric corrosion control: General. (a) Each operator must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this section. 5 Previous Final Orders show that Respondent was aware, or should have been aware, that it must provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with § 192.465(d). See, In re Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, CPF 1-2007- 1004 (December 17, 2009), 2009 WL 5538652 1, 4 (“The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to take prompt remedial action to correct deficiencies in the cathodic protection on its pipeline that had been identified through periodic testing…Respondent neither took prompt action to correct this issue nor presented any explanation for its failure to do so.”); Cf., In re Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, CPF: 1-2013-1002 (May 1, 2013) (Withdrawal Letter) (Where PHMSA withdrew an allegation that CGT had violated § 192.465(d) upon finding that the company had indeed “provided additional information and documentation to show it complied with the regulation.”). 6 See, In re Enterprise Products Operating, LLC, CPF 4-2007-5015 (December 2, 2009), 2009 WL 5538652 1, 4 (“While Respondent claimed in its Response that it had performed inspections consistent with all of these requirements, the operator failed to submit evidence that demonstrated full compliance.”). Further, this standard has also been applied to Final Orders involving § 192.465(d). See, In re Amerigas Propane, LP, CPF. 3-2006-0004 (April 15, 2009), 2009 WL 1211365 1, 3 (“The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d)…the records provided by Respondent…confirm the low readings.”); In re Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, CPF 4-2003-1005 (October 21, 2004), 2004 WL 6241370 1, 2 (“Documentation submitted by Respondent at the hearing showed completion of remedial action at only one location, Mile Post 710+99, where the reading on 8/15/00 was 1.298. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d) by not taking prompt remedial action actions to correct the condition.”).#

320151007_Final Order_09302016_text.pdf, page 5CPF No. 3-2015-1007 Page 4 The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a) by failing to clean and coat portions of its H107 and H87 pipelines that were exposed to the atmosphere. Specifically, the Notice alleged that during the OH-PUC inspection, state inspectors found multiple exposures on Lines H107 and H87 that had been scheduled for remediation but had not actually been fixed by the scheduled dates. After making subsequent field visits, the inspectors confirmed that remediation had still not occurred and that multiple exposed soil-to-air interfaces on the lines had not been cleaned and coated. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based on a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated § 192.479(a) by failing to clean and coat portions of its H107 and H87 pipelines that were exposed to the atmosphere. Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(c), which states: § 192.707 Line markers for mains and transmission lines. (a) … (c) Pipelines aboveground. Line markers must be placed and maintained along each section of a main and transmission line that is located aboveground in an area accessible to the public. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(c) by failing to place and maintain line markers at two locations where its pipelines were aboveground and accessible to the public. Specifically, the Notice alleged that during the inspection of Line V138, OH-PUC inspectors observed two aboveground exposures in areas accessible to the public but where no line markers could be seen nearby. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated § 192.707(c) by failing to place and maintain line markers at two locations where Line V148 was aboveground and accessible to the public. Item 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(b)(1), which states: § 192.905 How does an operator identify a high consequence area? (a) General. To determine which segments of an operator’s transmission pipeline system are covered by this subpart, an operator must identify the high consequence areas. . . (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. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(b)(1) by failing to properly#

320151007_Final Order_09302016_text.pdf, page 6CPF No. 3-2015-1007 Page 5 identify and include two High Consequence Areas (HCAs) on its HCA list.7 Specifically, the Notice alleged that during the OH-PUC’s field inspection of Line B108, state inspectors observed that Respondent had not identified and included on its HCA list two areas along Line B108, between Marten Park in Lancaster, Ohio, and the State Route 188 regulator station. Both locations fall within the definition of an HCA and therefore should have been identified and included on CGT’s HCA list. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find Respondent violated § 192.905(b)(1) by failing to properly identify and include on its HCA list two areas along Line B108. The above 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 $200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.8 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; 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 $168,300 for the violations cited above. Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $33,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d), for failing to promptly correct deficient CP readings on Line V148. As discussed above, I found that Respondent violated § 192.465(d) by failing to take adequate corrective actions between June 2012 until the end of calendar year 2013. Since the company had been previously cited for a similar violation in CPF No. 1-2013-1002, CGT was well aware that PHMSA had interpreted and applied § 192.465(d) so as to require operators to “take prompt remedial action” to correct deficient CP readings within 15 months of detecting such readings. In this case, the company failed to take appropriate action to achieve compliance, even though CGT personnel admitted to OH-PUC inspectors during the 2014 inspection that they were aware of this requirement but failed to correct deficient cathodic protection readings within 15 months.9 7 See 49 C.F.R. § 192.903 for the definition of the term “High Consequence Area” for gas pipelines. 8 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat. 1904, January 3, 2012, increased the civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to $200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations. 9 Violation Report, at 10.#

320151007_Final Order_09302016_text.pdf, page 7CPF No. 3-2015-1007 Page 6 Accordingly, having considered the assessment criteria and based upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $33,300 for violating § 192.465(d). Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $83,600 for Respondent’s violation of § 192.479(a), for failing to clean and coat portions of Lines H107 and H87 that were exposed to the atmosphere. CGT did not contest this alleged violation or the proposed penalty. I would also note that the penalty for this violation is enhanced because it constitutes a repeat violation of Item 2 in CPF No. 3-2010-1005. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $83,600 for its violation of § 192.479(a). Item 6: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $51,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(b)(1), for failing to properly identify and include on its HCA list two areas along Line B108. Respondent did not contest this violation or the proposed penalty, but explained why it now currently identifies one of these locations as an HCA. While Respondent has now taken steps to comply with § 192.905(b)(1), it previously failed to do so or provide a valid reason as to why it failed to include the two sites prior to 2013. According to the Violation Report, both of these HCAs should have been included on CGT’s HCA list as early as 2004, and one of the sites was a baseball complex where roughly 50 baseball games a year were played and should therefore have been treated as an HCA. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $51,400 for violating § 192.905(b)(1). 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 $168,300. Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845. Failure to pay the $168,300 civil penalty will result in an accrual of interest at the current annual rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9, and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district court of the United States. COMPLIANCE ORDER The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 3 and 5 in the Notice. Under 49#

320151007_Final Order_09302016_text.pdf, page 8CPF No. 3-2015-1007 Page 7 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. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations: 1. 2. 3. 4. In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice, pertaining to cleaning and coating the soil-to- air interface areas of the exposures on Lines V138, H107, and H87, CGT must provide and implement a plan to address the two exposures on Line V138 identified in Item Number 3 of the Notice, as well as any other exposures on this line. Regarding Lines H107 and H87, CGT must submit a schedule showing when ProTool 15740 (Replacement Scope for H107) and ProTool 17252 (Replacement Scope for H87) will be implemented and completed. In regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to line markers on the exposures, CGT must identify all exposures in the Meigs and Cambridge operating areas and install appropriate line markers at these locations, as well as the two sites identified in Item Number 5 of the Notice. In regard to Item Number 1 of this Compliance Order, CGT must provide a copy of the plan for remedial action on the exposures for Line V138 within 30 days of the receipt of this Order and complete all work described in the plans within one year from the receipt of this Order. In regard to H107 and H87, the replacement schedule must be submitted within 30 days of the receipt of this Order. Completion of the replacements must be done no later than one year from the receipt of this Order. In regard to Item Number 2 of this Compliance Order, CGT must complete the identification and installation of the line markers within 180 days from the receipt of this Order. It is requested (not mandated) that CGT maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region OPS, PHMSA. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies, and analyses; and 2) total cost associated replacements, additions, and other changes to pipeline infrastructure. WARNING ITEMS With respect to Items 1 and 4, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to be warning items. The warnings were for: 49 C.F.R. § 191.17(a) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to submit an accurate annual report for two of its Ohio pipeline systems. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the OH-PUC inspection revealed that Respondent had failed to file a proper 2013 annual report for its R433 and A120 pipelines in Ohio; and#

320151007_Final Order_09302016_text.pdf, page 9CPF No. 3-2015-1007 Page 8 49 C.F.R. § 192.619(a)(1) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to have the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) at its Nicodemus, Ohio regulator station established according to the design pressure of the weakest element in the segment. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the MAOP of the pipeline that fed the station was 800 psig, but this exceeded the MAOP of the weakest element at that station. CGT presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to address the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of these provisions in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action. Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all other terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. __________________________________ __________________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#

320151007_Closure Letter_12202017_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED December 20, 2017 Mr. Stan Chapman Senior Vice President & General Manager US Natural Gas Pipelines TransCanada Corporation 700 Louisiana St. Suite 700 Houston TX, 77002 CPF 3-2015-1007 Dear Mr. Chapman: On September 30, 2016, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued to Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC a Final Order in the above-referenced case. In 2016 Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC was acquired by the TransCanada Corporation. This Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order. Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Allan C. Beshore Director, Central Region, OPS Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration#

320151007_Cover Letter for REVISED NOPV PCP PCO_06032015_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFUPS Next Day Air June 3, 2015 Mr. Robert Kitchell Vice President-Operations Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC 1700 McCorkle Avenue, S.E. Charleston, West Virginia 25314 CPF 3-2015-1007 Dear Mr. Kitchell: On May 28, 2015, this office issued a Notice of Probable Violation with Proposed Civil Penalty and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) to Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, addressed to you at the above address. It has now come to my attention that there was a typographical error in the letter that needs corrected. Item 5 alleged a violation of 49 CFR §192.707, and the Notice included a Proposed Compliance Order for Item 5. However, on page 5 of the May 28 Notice it also stated that item 5 was a Warning Item. Item 5 as a Warning Item is an error, and the correct Warning Items are Items 1 and 4 of the Notice. Therefore, the error has been corrected in the enclosed Notice, which now includes a new issuance date of today, June 3, 2015. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC has thirty (30) days from the receipt of this letter to respond to the Notice, in accordance with 49 CFR §190.208. Sincerely, Allan C. Beshore Director, Central Region, OPS Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Enclosure#