{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420091020","title":"COLUMBIA GULF TRANSMISSION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2009-10-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.481(c), 192.605(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420091020.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420091020.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420091020","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420091020","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving COLUMBIA GULF TRANSMISSION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.481(c),  192.605(a). The case was opened on 2009-10-21 and is reported as closed as of 2011-01-31. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420091020_FinalOrder_01312011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420091020/420091020_FinalOrder_01312011.pdf\n\n420091020_FinalOrder_01312011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420091020/420091020_FinalOrder_01312011_text.pdf\n\n420091020_NOPV PCO_10212009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420091020/420091020_NOPV%20PCO_10212009.pdf\n\n420091020_NOPV PCO_10212009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420091020/420091020_NOPV%20PCO_10212009_text.pdf\n\n420091020_FinalOrder_01312011_text.pdf\n\nJAN 31 2011\nMr. Robert C. Skaggs, Jr.\nChief Executive Officer\nNiSource Inc.\n801 East 86th Avenue\n3rd Floor\nMerrillville, IN 46410\nRe: CPF No. 4-2009-1020\nDear Mr. Skaggs:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and finds that Columbia Gulf Transmission Company has completed the actions\nspecified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. Therefore, this case is\nnow closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of\nmailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA\nMr. Chad Zamarin\nDirector – Integrity Management\nNiSource Gas Transmission & Storage\n5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500\nHouston, TX 77056\nMr. Victor Gaglio\nSenior Vice President of Operations\nNiSource Inc.\n1700 MacCorkle Avenue\nCharleston, WV 25314\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0039 9938]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n___________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\n)\n)\nColumbia Gulf Transmission Company, )\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\n) CPF No. 4-2009-1020\nFINAL ORDER\nOn July 7, 2008, through October 24, 2008, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Columbia\nGulf Transmission Company (CGT or Respondent) in Delhi, Rayne, and Centerville, Louisiana.\nCGT, a subsidiary of NiSource, Inc., operates approximately 3,400 miles of gas transmission\npipelines and 11 compressor stations in Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, and\nWyoming.\n1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to CGT, by\nletter dated October 21, 2009, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order\n(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that CGT had\nviolated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.481 and 192.605(a), and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain\nmeasures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed finding that Respondent\nhad committed another probable violation of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and warned Respondent to take\nappropriate corrective action.\nCGT responded to the Notice by letters dated November 24, 2009 and March 5, 2010\n(collectively, Response). The company did not contest the allegations of violation but provided\ninformation concerning the corrective actions it had taken. Respondent did not request a hearing\nand therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, CGT did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part\n192, as follows:\n1 SEC Form 10-K, NiSource, Inc., February 2010, at 14.\n\n\n\n2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(c), which states:\n§ 192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) . . . .\n(c) If atmospheric corrosion is found during an inspection, the operator must\nprovide protection against the corrosion as required by § 192.479.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(c) by failing to provide\nprotection against atmospheric corrosion found during an inspection. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that CGT had found atmospheric corrosion at several locations and had failed to provide\nprotection against the corrosion, as required by§ 192.479. The locations were: the Egan\nMeasurement Station; the Exxon-Chalkley Lateral Tap; the Valve 1210-3 facility; and\nCompressor Station 14 – Houma, LA. In addition, the Notice alleged that CGT records from\nAugust 2006 and August 2008 indicated rust and pitting on various station piping at Compressor\nStation 14 and that, as of the time of the inspection, CGT had failed to protect against this\ncorrosion.\nIn its Response, CGT did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a\nreview of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(c) by failing to\nprovide protection against atmospheric corrosion identified at several locations.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), which states:\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline,\na manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance\nactivities and for emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual\nmust also include procedures for handling abnormal operations. This\nmanual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. This manual\nmust be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence.\nAppropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its own\nmanual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities. Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to follow its written procedures for placing line\nmarkers over each buried pipeline. CGT’s Operations Procedure, Plan No. 220.02.04, Field\nServices – Operations states, in relevant part, that “[p]ermanent pipeline markers conforming to\nSection 3.1.1 shall be installed and maintained as close as practical over each buried pipeline. . . .\nIt is recommended that markers be placed in the ‘line of sight’ wherever possible and practical.\n”2\n2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report, Exhibit C, at 2 (October 20, 2009) (Violation Report). See 49 C.F.R. § 192.707.\n\n\n\n3\nThe Notice alleged that CGT failed to mark numerous pipeline locations in accordance with its\nprocedures. Pipeline markers were missing in the following locations in Louisiana: south along\nthe right-of-way at the road crossing at MP 33; near MP 56.4 in the Red River area north and\nsouth along ML 100 and 200; at LA SR 115 near MP 43 north along ML 100, 200, and 300; near\nMP 19 at LA SR 1165 in the fence line and south along ML 100 and 200; at MP2 at Third Street\nnorth along South Pecan Lake lateral; at MP 8 north along the right-of-way from the South Pecan\nLake/lateral/Florence lateral tap; and north along the Paradise Line from VL TP-2 near MP 12.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §192.605(a) by failing to follow its\nown internal procedures regarding the placement of pipeline markers.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 3 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.481(c) and 192.605(a), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a\npipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under\nchapter 601. The Director indicates that Respondent has taken the following actions specified in\nthe proposed compliance order:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.481(c) (Item 1), Respondent surveyed the\nfacilities named in the Notice and all other facilities with above-ground piping in\norder to identify corrosion. The company remediated corrosion at the facilities\nnamed in the Notice, as well as 19 other major sites where corrosion had been\nidentified, and provided documentation to this effect.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 192.605(a) (Item 3), Respondent surveyed its\npipeline rights-of-way in Louisiana and, in accordance with its Procedure 220.02.04,\ninstalled pipeline markers at the locations named in the Notice, as well as other\nlocations identified during the survey.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations.\nTherefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 2, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 192 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning\nitem. The warning was for:\n\n\n\n4\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its\nwritten procedures by failing to perform a review of the site-specific emergency\nplan for Compressor Station 10 in calendar year 2007.\nCGT presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to address\nthe cited item. Accordingly, having considered such information, I find, pursuant to 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.205, that a probable violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Notice Item 2) has occurred. In\nthe event that OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may\nbe subject to future enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\n__________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":10414}