# COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

320151007_Closure Letter_12202017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320151007/320151007_Closure%20Letter_12202017.pdf

320151007_Closure Letter_12202017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320151007/320151007_Closure%20Letter_12202017_text.pdf

320151007_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

320151007_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

320151007_Final Order_09302016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320151007/320151007_Final%20Order_09302016.pdf

320151007_Final Order_09302016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320151007/320151007_Final%20Order_09302016_text.pdf

320151007_NOPV PCP PCO_05282015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320151007/320151007_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05282015.pdf

320151007_NOPV PCP PCO_05282015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320151007/320151007_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05282015_text.pdf

320151007_Operator Response to Notice_07172015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320151007/320151007_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_07172015.pdf

320151007_NOPV PCP PCO_05282015_text.pdf

NOTICE 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.



Columbia 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



During 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



(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



During 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



Proposed 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



PROPOSED 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

September 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



U.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).



CPF 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...”



CPF 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.”).



CPF 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



CPF 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.



CPF 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



CPF 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



CPF 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 tak
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 43537