{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320151007","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":"2015-06-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 191.17(a), 192.465(d), 192.479(a), 192.619(a)(1), 192.707(c), 192.905(b)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320151007.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320151007.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320151007","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320151007","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 191.17(a),  192.465(d),  192.479(a),  192.619(a)(1),  192.707(c),  192.905(b)(1). The case was opened on 2015-06-03 and is reported as closed as of 2017-12-20. Proposed civil penalty: $168,300. Assessed civil penalty: $168,300. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320151007_Closure Letter_12202017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320151007/320151007_Closure%20Letter_12202017.pdf\n\n320151007_Closure Letter_12202017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320151007/320151007_Closure%20Letter_12202017_text.pdf\n\n320151007_Cover Letter for REVISED NOPV PCP PCO_06032015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320151007/320151007_Cover%20Letter%20for%20REVISED%20NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06032015.pdf\n\n320151007_Cover Letter for REVISED NOPV PCP PCO_06032015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320151007/320151007_Cover%20Letter%20for%20REVISED%20NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06032015_text.pdf\n\n320151007_Final Order_09302016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320151007/320151007_Final%20Order_09302016.pdf\n\n320151007_Final Order_09302016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320151007/320151007_Final%20Order_09302016_text.pdf\n\n320151007_NOPV PCP PCO_05282015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320151007/320151007_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05282015.pdf\n\n320151007_NOPV PCP PCO_05282015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320151007/320151007_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05282015_text.pdf\n\n320151007_Operator Response to Notice_07172015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320151007/320151007_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_07172015.pdf\n\n320151007_NOPV PCP PCO_05282015_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMay 28, 2015\nMr. Robert Kitchell\nVice President-Operations\nColumbia Gas Transmission, LLC\n1700 McCorkle Avenue, S.E.\nCharleston, West Virginia 25314\nCPF 3-2015-1007\nDear Mr. Kitchell:\nOn various dates between January and August of 2014, representatives of the Ohio Public\nUtilities Commission acting as interstate agents for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected\nyour records and facilities throughout the State of Ohio.\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:\n1. §191.17 Transmission systems, gathering systems, and liquefied natural gas\nfacilities. Annual report.\n(a) Transmission or Gathering. Each operator of a transmission or a gathering\npipeline system must submit an annual report for that system on DOT Form\nPHMSA 7100.2.1. This report must be submitted each year, not later than\nMarch 15, for the preceding calendar year, except that for the 2010 reporting\nyear the report must be submitted by June 15, 2011.\n\n\n\nColumbia Gas Transmission (CGT) did not report on the 2013 annual report two newly\nconstructed pipelines that were in operation in 2013.\nLines R443 and A120 are two new plastic pipelines that were completed and operational\nin 2013. Review of the 2013 annual report found that neither of the two pipelines was\nreported.\n2. §192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(d) Each operator shall take prompt remedial action to correct any deficiencies\nindicated by the monitoring.\nIn the Cambridge and Meigs operating area, CGT did not promptly remediate two\ndeficient cathodic protection readings.\nReview of the cathodic protection records identified two low potential readings on Line\nV148 for 2012 and 2013. The readings in the records are as follows:\nTest Point Date Reading\nAsset 874156 6/26/2012 -0.740v\n3/26/2013 -0.810v\nAsset 874147 6/26/2012 -0.800v\n3/26/2013 -0.830v\nNo other records were produced to show that any remedial actions were taken from\n3/26/2013 until the end of the 2013 calendar year.\n3. §192.479 Atmospheric corrosion control – General\n(a) Each operator must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is\nexposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this section.\nCGT did not clean and coat the soil to air interface at multiple exposures on Lines V138,\nH107, and H87. During the records review, there were multiple exposures that were\nscheduled for remediation on Line H107 and H87, but did not occur by the due date.\nSubsequent field visits to the exposures on both lines verified that no action had been\ntaken at the soil to air interface to clean and coat the exposed pipelines.\nThe following exposures with the soil/air interface issues noted during the field review\nare as follows:\n1) Asset 1369681 for Line V138 (Identified by CGT on March 13, 2006)\n2) Asset 1370688 for Line V138 (Identified by CGT on March 27, 2007)\n2\n\n\n\nDuring the records review, the following exposures for line H107 did not receive any\nremedial actions to address the soil to air interface. All of these exposures except Assets\n1566279 and 1566280 should have been addressed by the time of this field inspection.\nAssets 1566279 and 1566280 had a scheduled completion date of July 1, 2014, which\nwas less than a month from the time of the field review. The subsequent field review of\nthe field exposures on Line H107 verified that no action had been taken:\n1) Asset 906165 (Identified by CGT on April 27, 2012)*\n2) Asset 906166 (Unknown)*\n3) Asset 906167 (Identified by CGT on April 27, 2012)*\n4) Asset 906168 (Identified by CGT on April 27, 2012)*\n5) Asset 906169 (Identified by CGT on April 27, 2012)*\n6) Asset 906170 (Identified by CGT on April 27, 2012)*\n7) Asset 906171 (Identified by CGT on April 27, 2012)*\n8) Asset 906172 (Identified by CGT on April 27, 2012)*\n9) Asset 906173 (Identified by CGT on April 27, 2012)*\n10) Asset 1548046 (Identified by CGT on May 1, 2012)\n11) Asset 1548047 (Identified by CGT on May 1, 2012)\n12) Asset 1566279 (Identified by CGT on July 2, 2013)*\n13) Asset 1566280 (Identified by CGT on July 2, 2013)*\n14) Asset 1566281 (Identified by CGT on July 2, 2013)\n*Verified in the field that no remedial action was taken.\nThe records review found that the following exposures on Line H87 had not received any\nremedial actions at the soil to air interface:\n1) Asset 906159 (Identified by CGT on April 10, 2012)\n2) Asset 906160 (Identified by CGT on April 10, 2012)\n3) Asset 1547598 (Identified by CGT on April 11, 2012)\n4) Asset 1559935 (Identified by CGT on January 30, 2013)\n5) Asset 1559937 (Identified by CGT on January 30, 2013)\n6) Asset 1559938 (Identified by CGT on January 30, 2013)\nAfter the inspection, CGT personnel indicated that a project scope to replace 8,612 feet\nof Line H107 and 2,600 feet of Line H87 was developed. These replacements would\naddress these exposures. However, CGT could not indicate when those projects would\noccur. This probable violation is a repeat violation of CPF 3-2010-1005, Item #2.\n4. §192.619 Maximum allowable operating pressure - Steel or plastic pipelines\n(a) No person may operate a segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a pressure that\nexceeds a maximum allowable operating pressure determined under paragraph\n(c) or (d) of this section, or the lowest of the following:\n3\n\n\n\n(1) The design pressure of the weakest element in the segment, determined in\naccordance with subparts C and D of this part. However, for steel pipe in\npipelines being converted under §192.14 or uprated under subpart K of this\npart, if any variable necessary to determine the design pressure under the design\nformula (§192.105) is unknown, one of the following pressures is to be used as\ndesign pressure\nCGT failed to have their maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) established\naccording to the design pressure of the weakest element in their segment.\nDuring the records review of the regulator inspections at Nicodemus regulator station, it\nwas noted that the Fisher 627M regulators had a ¼” orifice in them. Review of the\nmanufacturer specifications found that the ¼” orifice had a maximum inlet pressure of\n750 psig. The MAOP of the pipeline that feeds this station is 800 psig. As a result, CGT\npersonnel changed out the orifice to maintain the 800 psig MAOP and conducted a\nreview of other stations to ensure that there were no other inappropriately sized orifices.\n5. §192.707 Line markers for mains and transmission lines.\n(c) Pipelines above ground. Line markers must be placed and maintained along\neach section of a main and transmission line that is located aboveground in an area\naccessible to the public.\nCGT did not have line markers at two locations where their pipeline was aboveground\nand accessible to the public.\nDuring the field review of Line V-138, two aboveground exposures were observed. The\nexposures are not located in a restricted area and are accessible by the public. Neither of\nthe exposures had any line markers near them. The exposures noted are as follows:\nFor line V -138:\n1) Asset 1369681\n2) Asset 1370688\n6. §192.905 How does an operator identify a high consequence area?\n(b)(1) Identified sites. An operator must identify an identified site, for purposes of\nthis subpart, from information the operator has obtained from routine operation\nand maintenance activities and from public officials with safety or emergency\nresponse or planning responsibilities who indicate to the operator that they know of\nlocations that meet the identified site criteria. These public officials could include\nofficials on a local emergency planning commission or relevant Native American\ntribal officials.\nCGT did not properly identify two high consequence areas (HCA) on Line B108 from\nMarten Park in Lancaster, Ohio, to the State Route 188 regulator station.4\n\n\n\nDuring the field evaluation of Line B108 in the Treat operating area, two identified sites\nwere noted on the line. The two sites noted are the Anchor Hocking Glass Company and\nthe Martins Park Ball Field. Line B108 is an 8” diameter line with an MAOP of 125\npsig. The potential impact radius (PIR) calculates to approximately 120 feet. Both these\nsites fall within that PIR and were present before 2004.\nOriginally, CGT added the Anchor Hocking building as an HCA but it was eliminated in\n2006 because they determined that there were not twenty people within the PIR where\nthe radius intersected the plant. However, this facility should have stayed on the HCA\nlist because if any portion of a building containing twenty people for the time periods\nspecified in the rule is within the PIR, that building should be treated as an identified site.\nCGT did add this site to the HCA list in 2013.\nCGT could not provide an explanation of why the Martins Park Ball Field was not put on\nthe HCA list prior to 2013. In 2013, CGT added this site to the HCA list. However, it\nwas subsequently removed in 2015 because CGT’s research on February 26, 2015, found\nthat the park only met the criteria for the number of people for thirty-six days per year.\nHowever, when our inspector talked to the manager of Martins Park Ball Field on March\n3, 2015, he indicated that they have four ball diamonds with about thirty kids on each\ndiamond, not including the crowd. He also indicated that this occurred more than fifty\ndays annually, since games are played on the fields Monday through Saturday from May\nto August. It appears that this site should stay on the HCA list.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a\nrelated series of violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum\npenalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to\nexceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed\nthe circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s)\nand has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $168,300 as\nfollows:\nItem number PENALTY\n2 $33,300\n3 $83,600\n6 $51,400\nWarning Items\nWith respect to items one (1) and five (5), we have reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documents involved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional\nenforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to\npromptly correct these item(s). Failure to do so may result in additional enforcement action.\n5\n\n\n\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items three (3) and five (5) pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance\nOrder to Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order,\nwhich is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline\nOperators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response\noptions. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly\navailable. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted\ninformation qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond\nwithin thirty (30) days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to\ncontest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline\nSafety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final\nOrder.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2015-1007 and for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nAllan C. Beshore\nDirector, Central Region, OPS\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n6\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC a\nCompliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the\ncompliance of Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. 4. In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to cleaning and coating\nthe soil to interface areas of the exposures on Lines V138, H107, and H87,\nCGT must provide and implement a plan to address the two exposures\nidentified on Line V138 in this Notice, and any other exposures on this line.\nRegarding Lines H107 and H87, CGT must submit a schedule of when\nProTool 15740 (Replacement Scope for H107) and ProTool 17252\n(Replacement Scope for H87) will be implemented and completed.\nIn regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to having no line markers\non the exposures, CGT must identify all exposures in the Meigs and\nCambridge operating areas and install appropriate line markers at these\nlocations as well as the two sites identified in this Notice.\nIn regards to Item number 1 of the Proposed Compliance Order (PCO), CGT\nmust provide a copy of the plan for remedial action on the exposures for Line\nV138 within 30 days of the receipt of the Final Order and complete all work\ndescribed in the plans within one year from the receipt of the Final Order. In\nregards to H107 and H87, the replacement schedule must be submitted within\n30 days of the receipt of the Final Order. Completion of the replacements must\nbe done no later than one year from the receipt of the Final Order. In regards\nto Item number 2 of the PCO, CGT must complete the identification and\ninstallation of the line markers within 180 days from the receipt of the Final\nOrder.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC maintain\ndocumentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this\nCompliance Order and submit the total to Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central\nRegion OPS, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated\nwith preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2)\ntotal cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline\ninfrastructure.\n7\n\n320151007_Final Order_09302016_text.pdf\n\nSeptember 30, 2016\nMr. Robert C. Skaggs, Jr.\nChairman and CEO\nColumbia Pipeline Group, Inc.\n5151 San Felipe Street, Suite 2500\nHouston, Texas 77056\nRe: CPF No. 3-2015-1007\nDear Mr. Skaggs:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolations, assesses a civil penalty of $168,300, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nColumbia Gas Transmission, LLC, a subsidiary of Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc. to comply\nwith the Federal pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final\nOrder. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed,\nas determined by the Director, Central Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of\nthe Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region, OPS\nMr. Perry Michael Hoffman, Manager – System Integrity, Columbia Gas Transmission,\nLLC, 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE, Charleston, West Virginia 25314\nAssistant General Counsel Diane Neal, Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc., 5151 San Felipe\nStreet, Suite 2400, Houston, Texas 77056\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\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 )\nColumbia Gas Transmission, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2015-1007\na subsidiary of Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc., )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n__________________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn various dates between January 2014 and August 2014, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60117, representatives of the Ohio Public Utilities Commission (OH-PUC), acting as interstate\nagent for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), inspected the\nfacilities and records of Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (CGT or Respondent), throughout the\nState of Ohio. CGT, a subsidiary of Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc., transports an average of\nthree billion cubic feet of natural gas per day through approximately 11,307 miles of pipelines\nacross 10 states.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated June 3, 2015, 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 CGT had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.465, 192.479, 192.707, 192.905, and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $168,300 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations and\nadvised CGT to promptly correct two warnings items or face future potential enforcement action.\nCGT responded to the Notice by letter dated July 17, 2015 (Response). The company contested\none allegation of violation and requested that the proposed civil penalty for that Item be\nwithdrawn. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (05/27/2015) (Violation Report), (on file with PHMSA), at 1. See also Columbia\nPipeline Group, Inc., Our Companies – Columbia Gas Transmission, website: https://www.cpg.com/about-us/our-\ncompanies, (last accessed on February 28, 2016).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2015-1007\nPage 2\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d), which states:\n§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each pipeline that is under cathodic protection must be tested at\nleast once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months,\nto determine whether the cathodic protection meets the requirements of\n§ 192.463. However, if tests at those intervals are impractical for separately\nprotected short sections of mains or transmission lines, not in excess of 100\nfeet (30 meters), or separately protected service lines, these pipelines may\nbe surveyed on a sampling basis. At least 10 percent of these protected\nstructures, distributed over the entire system must be surveyed each\ncalendar year, with a different 10 percent checked each subsequent year, so\nthat the entire system is tested in each 10-year period. . . .\n(d) Each operator shall take prompt remedial action to correct any\ndeficiencies indicated by the monitoring.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d) by failing to promptly\ncorrect deficient cathodic protection (CP) readings. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CGT’s\ncathodic protection records for its Cambridge and Meigs operating areas in Ohio identified two\nsets of deficient CP readings on Line V148 – one set taken on June 26, 2012, and one on March\n26, 2013. The Notice alleged that CGT failed to take proper action to correct the deficient\nreadings until the end of the 2013 calendar year.\nRespondent contested this allegation of violation, asserting that it did take appropriate action to\ncorrect CP readings on Line V148. The company stated that in September 2012, it installed\nadditional CP on the line and that by March 26, 2013, the readings had improved.2 It further\nstated that “[f]ollowing the readings collected in March of 2013, Columbia again installed\nadditional cathodic protection to bring the pipeline back into compliance with CP criteria.”3 To\nsupport its argument, CGT produced an affidavit from a former employee, stating that additional\nCP had been installed at these locations in September 2012, and that by March 2013 the readings\nhad improved.4\nI am unconvinced that the actions taken by CGT after June 26, 2012, “promptly” corrected the\ndeficient CP readings, as required under § 192.465(d). First, the CP readings taken in June 2012\nand then again in March 2013 remained deficient and below the criteria set in Part 192,\nAppendix D. The company never presented any proof that additional readings were taken\nbetween June 2012 and the end of calendar year 2013, or that they ever fell below the -0.85V\n2 Response, at 2 – 3.\n3 Id., at 3.\n4 Id., at Attachment A. “The affidavit stated that “the readings on Asset 874156 changed from -0.74V to -0.81V\nand the readings at Asset 874147 changed from -0.800 to -0.830V...”\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2015-1007\nPage 3\ncriterion for steel pipe (as set forth in Appendix D). Furthermore, CGT never presented any\nevidence that the readings met any other applicable minimum CP criteria. In fact, the\ndeficiencies continued to exist from June 2012 to the end of 2013, which exceeded the 15-month\ninspection interval during which operators are expected to correct any known deficiencies.\nSecond, the affidavit of CGT’s former employee did not purport to show that the CP deficiencies\nhad ever been fully corrected, but indicated, rather, that mitigative actions taken after the June\n2012 readings had improved, but not corrected, the deficiencies. Third, the company was unable\nto produce any actual records showing what specific corrective actions were taken after June 26,\n2012, when such actions were taken, or whether the low readings were ever fully corrected\nwithin 15 months from the time the deficiencies were first identified.\nFinally, I would note that this issue is not new to CGT. The company’s enforcement history\nincludes at least one prior finding of violation for failing to correct CP deficiencies within the 15-\nmonth inspection interval and failing to produce proper documentation for the remedial actions it\ndid take.5 This finding is also consistent with other PHMSA final orders, where proper\ndocumentation was needed to show the adequacy of an operator’s corrective actions.6\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n§ 192.465(d) by failing to promptly correct two sets of deficient CP readings on Line V148.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a), which states:\n§ 192.479 Atmospheric corrosion control: General.\n(a) Each operator must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of\npipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph\n(c) of this section.\n5 Previous Final Orders show that Respondent was aware, or should have been aware, that it must provide sufficient\nevidence to demonstrate compliance with § 192.465(d). See, In re Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, CPF 1-2007-\n1004 (December 17, 2009), 2009 WL 5538652 1, 4 (“The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to take prompt\nremedial action to correct deficiencies in the cathodic protection on its pipeline that had been identified through\nperiodic testing…Respondent neither took prompt action to correct this issue nor presented any explanation for its\nfailure to do so.”); Cf., In re Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, CPF: 1-2013-1002 (May 1, 2013) (Withdrawal\nLetter) (Where PHMSA withdrew an allegation that CGT had violated § 192.465(d) upon finding that the company\nhad indeed “provided additional information and documentation to show it complied with the regulation.”).\n6 See, In re Enterprise Products Operating, LLC, CPF 4-2007-5015 (December 2, 2009), 2009 WL 5538652 1, 4\n(“While Respondent claimed in its Response that it had performed inspections consistent with all of these\nrequirements, the operator failed to submit evidence that demonstrated full compliance.”). Further, this standard has\nalso been applied to Final Orders involving § 192.465(d). See, In re Amerigas Propane, LP, CPF. 3-2006-0004\n(April 15, 2009), 2009 WL 1211365 1, 3 (“The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §\n192.465(d)…the records provided by Respondent…confirm the low readings.”); In re Natural Gas Pipeline\nCompany of America, CPF 4-2003-1005 (October 21, 2004), 2004 WL 6241370 1, 2 (“Documentation submitted by\nRespondent at the hearing showed completion of remedial action at only one location, Mile Post 710+99, where the\nreading on 8/15/00 was 1.298. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d) by not taking\nprompt remedial action actions to correct the condition.”).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2015-1007\nPage 4\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a) by failing to clean and coat\nportions of its H107 and H87 pipelines that were exposed to the atmosphere. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that during the OH-PUC inspection, state inspectors found multiple exposures on\nLines H107 and H87 that had been scheduled for remediation but had not actually been fixed by\nthe scheduled dates. After making subsequent field visits, the inspectors confirmed that\nremediation had still not occurred and that multiple exposed soil-to-air interfaces on the lines had\nnot been cleaned and coated.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based on a review of all of\nthe evidence, I find that Respondent violated § 192.479(a) by failing to clean and coat portions of\nits H107 and H87 pipelines that were exposed to the atmosphere.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(c), which states:\n§ 192.707 Line markers for mains and transmission lines.\n(a) …\n(c) Pipelines aboveground. Line markers must be placed and\nmaintained along each section of a main and transmission line that is located\naboveground in an area accessible to the public.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(c) by failing to place and\nmaintain line markers at two locations where its pipelines were aboveground and accessible to\nthe public. Specifically, the Notice alleged that during the inspection of Line V138, OH-PUC\ninspectors observed two aboveground exposures in areas accessible to the public but where no\nline markers could be seen nearby.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated § 192.707(c) by failing to place and maintain\nline markers at two locations where Line V148 was aboveground and accessible to the public.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(b)(1), which states:\n§ 192.905 How does an operator identify a high consequence area?\n(a) General. To determine which segments of an operator’s transmission\npipeline system are covered by this subpart, an operator must identify the\nhigh consequence areas. . .\n(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\nsafety or emergency response or planning responsibilities who indicate to\nthe operator that they know of locations that meet the identified site criteria.\nThese public officials could include officials on a local emergency planning\ncommission or relevant Native American tribal officials.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.905(b)(1) by failing to properly\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2015-1007\nPage 5\nidentify and include two High Consequence Areas (HCAs) on its HCA list.7 Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that during the OH-PUC’s field inspection of Line B108, state inspectors\nobserved that Respondent had not identified and included on its HCA list two areas along Line\nB108, between Marten Park in Lancaster, Ohio, and the State Route 188 regulator station. Both\nlocations fall within the definition of an HCA and therefore should have been identified and\nincluded on CGT’s HCA list.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find Respondent violated § 192.905(b)(1) by failing to properly identify and\ninclude on its HCA list two areas along Line B108.\nThe above 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$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.8 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; any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil\npenalty of $168,300 for the violations cited above.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $33,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.465(d), for failing to promptly correct deficient CP readings on Line V148. As discussed\nabove, I found that Respondent violated § 192.465(d) by failing to take adequate corrective\nactions between June 2012 until the end of calendar year 2013. Since the company had been\npreviously cited for a similar violation in CPF No. 1-2013-1002, CGT was well aware that\nPHMSA had interpreted and applied § 192.465(d) so as to require operators to “take prompt\nremedial action” to correct deficient CP readings within 15 months of detecting such readings.\nIn this case, the company failed to take appropriate action to achieve compliance, even though\nCGT personnel admitted to OH-PUC inspectors during the 2014 inspection that they were aware\nof this requirement but failed to correct deficient cathodic protection readings within 15 months.9\n7 See 49 C.F.R. § 192.903 for the definition of the term “High Consequence Area” for gas pipelines.\n8 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat.\n1904, January 3, 2012, increased the civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to $200,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.\n9 Violation Report, at 10.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2015-1007\nPage 6\nAccordingly, having considered the assessment criteria and based upon the foregoing, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $33,300 for violating § 192.465(d).\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $83,600 for Respondent’s violation of\n§ 192.479(a), for failing to clean and coat portions of Lines H107 and H87 that were exposed to\nthe atmosphere. CGT did not contest this alleged violation or the proposed penalty. I would also\nnote that the penalty for this violation is enhanced because it constitutes a repeat violation of\nItem 2 in CPF No. 3-2010-1005. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $83,600 for its violation of\n§ 192.479(a).\nItem 6: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $51,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.905(b)(1), for failing to properly identify and include on its HCA list two areas along Line\nB108. Respondent did not contest this violation or the proposed penalty, but explained why it\nnow currently identifies one of these locations as an HCA.\nWhile Respondent has now taken steps to comply with § 192.905(b)(1), it previously failed to do\nso or provide a valid reason as to why it failed to include the two sites prior to 2013. According\nto the Violation Report, both of these HCAs should have been included on CGT’s HCA list as\nearly as 2004, and one of the sites was a baseball complex where roughly 50 baseball games a\nyear were played and should therefore have been treated as an HCA. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$51,400 for violating § 192.905(b)(1).\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 $168,300.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $168,300 civil penalty will result in an accrual of interest at the current annual\nrate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9, and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 3 and 5 in the Notice. Under 49\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2015-1007\nPage 7\nU.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217,\nRespondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety\nregulations applicable to its operations:\n1. 2. 3. 4. In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice, pertaining to cleaning and coating the soil-to-\nair interface areas of the exposures on Lines V138, H107, and H87, CGT must provide\nand implement a plan to address the two exposures on Line V138 identified in Item\nNumber 3 of the Notice, as well as any other exposures on this line. Regarding Lines\nH107 and H87, CGT must submit a schedule showing when ProTool 15740\n(Replacement Scope for H107) and ProTool 17252 (Replacement Scope for H87) will be\nimplemented and completed.\nIn regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to line markers on the exposures,\nCGT must identify all exposures in the Meigs and Cambridge operating areas and install\nappropriate line markers at these locations, as well as the two sites identified in Item\nNumber 5 of the Notice.\nIn regard to Item Number 1 of this Compliance Order, CGT must provide a copy of the\nplan for remedial action on the exposures for Line V138 within 30 days of the receipt of\nthis Order and complete all work described in the plans within one year from the receipt\nof this Order. In regard to H107 and H87, the replacement schedule must be submitted\nwithin 30 days of the receipt of this Order. Completion of the replacements must be done\nno later than one year from the receipt of this Order. In regard to Item Number 2 of this\nCompliance Order, CGT must complete the identification and installation of the line\nmarkers within 180 days from the receipt of this Order.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that CGT maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total\nto Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region OPS, PHMSA. It is requested that these\ncosts be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of\nplans, procedures, studies, and analyses; and 2) total cost associated replacements,\nadditions, and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1 and 4, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to\nbe warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 191.17(a) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to submit an\naccurate annual report for two of its Ohio pipeline systems. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that the OH-PUC inspection revealed that Respondent had failed to\nfile a proper 2013 annual report for its R433 and A120 pipelines in Ohio; and\n\n\n\nCPF No. 3-2015-1007\nPage 8\n49 C.F.R. § 192.619(a)(1) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to have the\nmaximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) at its Nicodemus, Ohio regulator\nstation established according to the design pressure of the weakest element in the\nsegment. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the MAOP of the pipeline that fed\nthe station was 800 psig, but this exceeded the MAOP of the weakest element at\nthat station.\nCGT presented information in its Response showing that it had tak","truncated":true,"body_characters":43537}