COLUMBIA GULF TRANSMISSION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

case documentOfficial PDF420111014_NOPV PCO_11072011.pdf#

case documentOfficial PDF420111014_NOPV PCO_11072011_text.pdf#

party submissionOfficial PDF420111014_Operator Response to Notice and Closure Request_12122011.pdf#

420111014_ Final Order_05012012_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFMAY 1 2012 Mr. Joseph P. Shields Chief Operating Officer NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage 5151 San Felipe, #2500 Houston, TX 77056 Re: CPF No. 4-2011-1014 Dear Mr. Shields: Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation and finds that Columbia Gulf Transmission Company has completed the actions specified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. Therefore, this case is now closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Jeffrey D. Wiese Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Mr. Rod Seeley, Director, Southern Region, OPS Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS Mr. Michael Hoffman, Manager, System Integrity, NiSource Gas Transmission & Storage, 1700 McCorkle Avenue, Charleston, WV 25314 CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED#

420111014_ Final Order_05012012_text.pdf, page 2U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 ____________________________________ ) In the Matter of ) ) Columbia Gulf Transmission Company, ) CPF No. 4-2011-1014 ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) FINAL ORDER On various dates in 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (CGTC or Respondent) in Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky. CGTC is the operator of a 3,400-mile interstate pipeline system that transports natural gas to customers and markets in the Midwest, Southeast, and Northeast.1 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated November 7, 2011, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning item pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that CGTC had violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violation. The warning item required no further action but warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face future potential enforcement action. CGTC responded to the Notice by letter dated December 12, 2011 (Response). The company did not contest the allegations of violation but provided information concerning the corrective actions it had taken. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one. FINDING OF VIOLATION In its Response, CGTC did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows: 1 CGTC is a subsidiary of NiSource Gas Transmission & Storage, which owns and operates approximately 15,000 miles of interstate natural gas pipelines and an integrated underground storage system in North America. http://www.ngts.com/en/home.aspx (last accessed Feb. 29, 2012).#

420111014_ Final Order_05012012_text.pdf, page 32 Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(b), which states: § 192.615 Emergency Plans. (a) Each operator shall establish written procedures to minimize the hazard resulting from a gas pipeline emergency. At a minimum, the procedures must provide for the following: . . . . (b) Each operator shall: (1) . . . . (2) Train the appropriate operating personnel to assure that they are knowledgeable of the emergency procedures and verify that the training is effective. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(b) by failing to train appropriate operating personnel to assure that they were knowledgeable of the company’s emergency procedures and to verify that the training was effective. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CGTC did not have adequate documentation to demonstrate that the company’s control center personnel had received the required training, or that Respondent had taken steps to verify the effectiveness of that training. The Notice stated that the only documentation CGTC provided to the OPS inspection team was a sign-in sheet and brochure for the emergency plan training for the company’s control center personnel. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(b) by failing to train appropriate operating personnel to assure that they were knowledgeable of the company’s emergency procedures and to verify that the training was effective. This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent. COMPLIANCE ORDER The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 2 in the Notice for violations of 49 C.F.R. § 192.615. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director indicates that CGTC has taken the following actions in response to the proposed compliance order: 1. With respect to the violation of § 192.615(b) (Item 2), Respondent has implemented a robust emergency training plan program for its control center personnel. PHMSA has reviewed the procedures and records for that program and found them to be satisfactory. Accordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.#

420111014_ Final Order_05012012_text.pdf, page 43 WARNING ITEM With respect to Item 1, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 191 but did not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning item. The warning was for: 49 C.F.R. § 191.5(a) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to provide telephonic notice to the National Response Center at the earliest practicable moment after discovering two incidents, on August 25, 2006, and August 3, 2007, meeting the definition of reportable incidents under § 191.3. CGTC presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to address the cited item. If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. ___________________________________ __________________________ Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#