{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420161001","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":"2016-01-19","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 191.15(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420161001.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420161001.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420161001","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420161001","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving COLUMBIA GULF TRANSMISSION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 191.15(c). The case was opened on 2016-01-19 and is reported as closed as of 2016-12-16. Proposed civil penalty: $33,100. Assessed civil penalty: $33,100. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420161001_Final Order_12012016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161001/420161001_Final%20Order_12012016.pdf\n\n420161001_Final Order_12012016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161001/420161001_Final%20Order_12012016_text.pdf\n\n420161001_NOPV PCP_01192016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161001/420161001_NOPV%20PCP_01192016.pdf\n\n420161001_NOPV PCP_01192016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161001/420161001_NOPV%20PCP_01192016_text.pdf\n\n420161001_Operator Response to Notice_02232016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420161001/420161001_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_02232016.pdf\n\n420161001_Final Order_12012016_text.pdf\n\nDecember 1, 2016\nMr. Robert C. Skaggs, Jr.\nChairman and CEO\nColumbia Pipeline Group, Inc.\n5151 San Felipe Street\nSuite 2500\nHouston, Texas 77056\nRe: CPF No. 4-2016-1001\nDear Mr. Skaggs:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $33,100 against your subsidiary, Columbia Gulf\nTransmission, LLC. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This\nenforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of the Final Order by\ncertified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under\n49 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. Rodrick M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\nMr. Tommy Kilpatrick, Vice President – Operations, Columbia Gulf Transmission,\nLLC, 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE, Charleston, West Virginia 25314\nMs. Diane Neal, Assistant General Counsel, Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc.\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-1001\nPage 2\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n__________________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nColumbia Gulf Transmission, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2016-1001\na subsidiary of Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc., )\n)\nRespondent. )\n_________________________________________ )\nFINAL ORDER\nOn September 30, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nreviewed certain information and records of Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC (CGT or\nRespondent), relating to an April 25, 2014 incident (Incident) on the company’s ML300 natural\ngas pipeline located near Delhi, Louisiana. CGT, a subsidiary of Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc.,\noperates an interstate pipeline system consisting of approximately 3,400 miles of pipeline and 11\ncompressor stations, located primarily in Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky.1\nAfter reviewing CGT’s records related to the Incident, the Director, Southwest, Region, OPS\n(Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated January 19, 2016, a Notice of Probable\nViolation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that CGT had violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15 and proposed assessing a\ncivil penalty of $33,100 for the alleged violation.\nCGT responded to the Notice by letter dated February 23, 2016 (Response). Respondent\ncontested the allegation of violation and requested that the proposed civil penalty be withdrawn.\nRespondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 191, as follows:\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (05/27/2015) (on file with PHMSA), at 1; See also,\nColumbia Pipeline Group, Our Companies – Columbia Gulf Transmission, https://www.cpg.com/about-us/our-\ncompanies (last accessed on February 28, 2016).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-1001\nPage 3\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(c), which states:\n§ 191.15 Transmission systems; gathering systems; and liquefied\nnatural gas facilities: Incident report.\n(a) Transmission or Gathering. Each operator of a transmission or\na gathering pipeline system must submit DOT Form PHMSA F 7100.2 as\nsoon as practicable but not more than 30 days after detection of an incident\nrequired to be reported under § 191.5 of this part. . .\n(c) Supplemental report. Where additional related information is\nobtained after a report is submitted under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section,\nthe operator must make a supplemental report as soon as practicable with a\nclear reference by date to the original report.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 191.15(c) by failing to make a supplemental\nreport to PHMSA as soon as practicable after obtaining additional information about the\ncircumstances surrounding an incident. Specifically, the Notice alleged that on April 25, 2014,\nCGT experienced an accident on its ML300 natural gas pipeline near Delhi, Louisiana, and filed\nan incident report (PHMSA Form F 7100.2) on May 22, 2014, as required by § 191.15(a)). The\nNotice further alleged that in its initial report, CGT listed the cause of the Incident as\n“unknown/still under investigation.” Further, on April 7, 2015, CGT allegedly received a\nmetallurgical analysis “that provided the necessary information to determine a probable cause of\nfailure [but CGT] did not file a supplemental final report until receiving a request from the\nSouthwest Region.” When CGT did file a supplemental report with PHMSA on September 30,\n2015, it allegedly only listed the cause of the Incident as “Miscellaneous.” Finally, on November\n29, 2015, after repeated requests from PHMSA, CGT allegedly filed a final supplemental report\nthat properly listed the cause of the Incident as “fatigue.”\nRespondent contested this allegation of violation. While it did not dispute the facts alleged in the\nNotice, CGT asserted that it filed the September 30, 2015 supplemental report “as soon as\npracticable” once “the metallurgical analysis report was finalized on April 7, 2015.”2 First, the\ncompany argued that Part 191 does not define the phrase “as soon as practicable,” unlike 49\nC.F.R. § 195.54(b), which requires operators to file supplemental accident reports on hazardous\nliquid pipelines within 30 days after receiving any changes in the information reported or\nadditions to the original report.3\nSecond, CGT argued that while the September 30, 2015 supplemental report listed the cause of\nthe accident as “Miscellaneous,” the report also provided an “additional description clearly\n2 Response, at 2.\n3 Id. Respondent argues that because the parallel provision in § 195.54(b) for hazardous liquid pipeline accidents\nspecifies a 30-day deadline for submitting the same type of supplemental report but § 191.15(c) does not, this\nsomehow suggests that time is not of the essence in filing supplemental reports on gas pipeline accidents. This is a\ndistinction without a difference. If anything, the 30-day requirement in Part 195 reinforces the allegation here that\nCGT failed to file a supplemental report “as soon as practicable,” since CGT did not file a supplemental report until\nwell past 30 days.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-1001\nPage 4\nstating the cause was fatigue consistent with the metallurgical analysis report.”4 Finally, CGT\nstated that it submitted the November 29, 2015 supplemental report to address requests from\nPHMSA – including PHMSA’s request that CGT list “fatigue” in Section G of the report and\nthat it classify the cause of the Incident as coming under the category “Pipe, Weld or Joint\nFailure.”\nUpon review of Respondent’s arguments, I find each of them unpersuasive. As for its first\nargument, CGT correctly notes that the phrase “as soon as practicable” is not defined in\n§ 191.15(c). The Code does not set a prescribed number of days needed to meet the “as soon as\npracticable” standard since each situation is different. However, PHMSA’s prior enforcement\ndecisions and a common-sense reading of the phrase dictate that once an operator has sufficient\ninformation to determine the cause of an accident, it must promptly convey that information to\nPHMSA through a supplemental report.\nThe facts in this case are strikingly similar to those in a previous PHMSA enforcement action, In\nthe Matter of El Paso Natural Gas Company, CPF No. 4-2010-1005 (October 24, 2012).5 In that\ncase, PHMSA found that the company had violated § 191.15 by failing to file a supplemental\nincident report roughly eight months after receiving a detailed metallurgical analysis report on\nthe probable cause of a failure.6 In the present case, on April 7, 2015, Respondent received a\nmetallurgical analysis listing the cause of the Incident as “fatigue” but did not submit any\nsupplemental report to PHMSA containing this new information until September 30, 2015 – 176\ndays after receiving the metallurgical analysis and only after a request from the OPS Southwest\nRegion. Further, Respondent did not file a final supplemental report listing the cause of the\nIncident as “fatigue” until November 29, 2015 – 236 days after receiving the metallurgical\nreport.\nOne of the main purposes of DOT Form PHMSA F 7100.2 is to document an operator’s ongoing\nefforts to determine the cause of an accident. While the root cause of an accident may not be\nknown immediately, § 191.15(a) places a responsibility on the operator to report an accident as\nsoon as practicable, but not more than 30 days, following detection of the incident and to report\nwhat is known about its probable cause. Under paragraph (c), the operator also has an ongoing\nobligation to inform PHMSA as soon as the company becomes aware of “additional\ninformation” about the accident, including its cause. Fulfilling this obligation allows both the\noperator and PHMSA to take appropriate action to address any underlying issues relating to the\ncause of the incident, and the agency can use this critical information to assemble and analyze\ndata from other reportable incidents so as to promote safety and prevent similar accidents\nthroughout the industry. Therefore, this information-collection process cannot be accurate or\nachieve its purpose if the forms are not completed properly and updated as soon as practicable\nafter new information is received.\n4 Id.\n5 See, http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/Actions opid 0 html?nocache=2356.\n6 See also, In the Matter of CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company, Final Order, CPF No. 4-2009-1001\n(November 6, 2009) (available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement) (finding that CenterPoint violated 49\nC.F.R. § 191.15(b) [now § 191.15(c)] by failing to file a supplemental report roughly six months after receiving a\nfinal metallurgical report determining the cause of a failure)\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-1001\nPage 5\nCGT has suggested in its Response that its failure to file a supplemental report that accurately\nand timely identified the cause of this incident was merely a technical violation and that the\ncompany did not need to include additional, or more accurate, information in its September 30,\n2015 supplemental report or to file another report. This is incorrect. The September 30, 2015\nsupplemental report still listed the cause of the Incident as being “Miscellaneous,” when, in fact,\nthe cause had been identified by the metallurgical report as “fatigue.”\nThus, the September 30, 2015 supplemental report was both late and factually incomplete. It\nwas only after repeated requests from PHMSA that CGT eventually filed a proper supplemental\nreport on November 29, 2015. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated § 191.15(c) by failing to make a supplemental report to PHMSA as soon as\npracticable after obtaining additional information about the cause of the Incident.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken 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. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122\nand 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and\ngravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of\nRespondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty\nmay have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent in\nattempting 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 $33,100 for the violation cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $33,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 191.15(c), for failing to make a supplemental report to PHMSA on DOT Form PHMSA F\n7100.2 as soon as practicable after obtaining additional information about the cause of the\nIncident. As discussed above, I found that Respondent filed a supplemental report\napproximately 176 days after receiving a critical metallurgical report that identified the cause of\nthe Incident as fatigue and that such an extended period of time was not “as soon as practicable”\nafter obtaining such additional information.\nI further find the proposed penalty to be reasonable and assessed in accordance with the penalty\nassessment criteria outlined in 49 C.F.R. § 190.225. While the violation did not affect the\nintegrity or safety of CGT’s pipeline, the requirement to file supplemental reports as soon as\npracticable after obtaining additional information is clear and unambiguous. Reporting\nrequirements such as this are critical to ensure that PHMSA and the public promptly learn the\ncauses of gas pipeline incidents and are able to take timely action to address them. Accordingly,\nhaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-1001\nPage 6\npenalty of $33,100 for violating 49 C.F.R. § 191.15(c).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for the Item cited\nabove, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $33,100.\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 $33,100 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin 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.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent has the right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order, including\nany required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final\nOrder becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is\nwaived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nDecember 1, 2016\n__________________________________ ________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":17258}