# NATIONAL FUEL GAS SUPPLY CORP — Notice of Probable Violation

**Citation:** CPF 120161005  
**Type / status:** enforcement / historical  
**Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration  
**Effective:** Not stated  
**Published:** 2016-08-04

CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.169(a), 192.169(b), 192.605(a), 192.617.

## Document text

Notice of Probable Violation involving NATIONAL FUEL GAS SUPPLY CORP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.169(a),  192.169(b),  192.605(a),  192.617. The case was opened on 2016-08-04 and is reported as closed as of 2020-07-10. Proposed civil penalty: $202,900. Assessed civil penalty: $53,200. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

120161005_Closure Letter_07102020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161005/120161005_Closure%20Letter_07102020.pdf

120161005_Closure Letter_07102020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161005/120161005_Closure%20Letter_07102020_text.pdf

120161005_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_11152019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161005/120161005_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_11152019.pdf

120161005_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_11152019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161005/120161005_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_11152019_text.pdf

120161005_Final Order_04182019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161005/120161005_Final%20Order_04182019.pdf

120161005_Final Order_04182019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161005/120161005_Final%20Order_04182019_text.pdf

120161005_NOPV PCP PCO_08042016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161005/120161005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08042016.pdf

120161005_NOPV PCP PCO_08042016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161005/120161005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08042016_text.pdf

120161005_Operator Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Stay_05092019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161005/120161005_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration%20and%20Request%20for%20Stay_05092019.pdf

120161005_Operator Post-Hearing Submissions_06122017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161005/120161005_Operator%20Post-Hearing%20Submissions_06122017.pdf

120161005_Operator Response to Notice  And Request for Hearing_09302016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161005/120161005_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20%20And%20Request%20for%20Hearing_09302016.pdf

120161005_NOPV PCP PCO_08042016_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
OVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY
August 04, 2016
David Bauer
President, National Fuel Gas Supply Corp.
6363 Main Street
Williamsville, NY 14221
CPF 1-2016-1005
Dear Mr. Bauer:
On March 6, 2015, representatives of the New York State Department of Public Service
(NYDPS), acting as agents for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, responded to and conducted an
investigation into an incident that occurred on the regulator on the start gas line for the
compressors at the National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation’s (NFG) Beech Hill Compressor
Station, located in the town of Wellsville, NY 14895, approximately 55 miles west of Corning,
NY in a rural, wooded area.
On March 5, 2015, at 17:54 (EST), a regulator failed on the start gas line for the compressors at
the NFG Beech Hill Compressor Station. The failure caused an increase in pressure in the piping
downstream of the regulator from 175 psig to 341 psig. The downstream piping had a maximum
allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of 300 psig.
A rupture disc relief device, rated at 311 psig, burst and natural gas was released into the
atmosphere through the vent stack. The gas discharged up the side of the M&R building into the
eave, located approximately ten feet above the top of the vent piping, and ignited. NFG
personnel responded to a call from a neighbor, and activated the Emergency Shutdown System;
the fire was extinguished.
The regulator was replaced, and the station was back in service on March 6, 2015.



1-2016-1005
There were no evacuations, injuries, deaths, or extensive property damage associated with this
incident. The estimated natural gas product loss was reported to be 12,400 thousand cubic feet
(MCF). Estimated incident costs were reported in excess of $42,000.
NFG notified the National Response Center (NRC Report #1109781) on March 6, 2015, at 09:11
(EST).
On March 23, 2015, NFG submitted DOT Form F 7100.2 for the incident (Incident Report).
The Incident Report described the incident as a regulator malfunction, raising downstream
pressure above the set point causing a relief rupture disc to burst, thereby allowing natural gas to
vent. In the Incident Report, NFG indicated that the rupture disc burst at 17:54 (EST) on March
5, 2015. The fire was reported at 05:04 (EST) on March 6, 2015. The estimated pressure at the
point and time of the incident was given as 300 psig. The apparent cause of the incident was
given as equipment failure.
As a result of the investigation, 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. §192.169 Compressor stations: Pressure limiting devices
(a) Each compressor station must have pressure relief or other suitable protective
devices of sufficient capacity and sensitivity to ensure that the maximum allowable
operating pressure of the station piping and equipment is not exceeded by more
than 10 percent.
NFG failed to ensure that each compressor station had pressure relief or other suitable protective
devices of sufficient capacity and sensitivity to ensure that the maximum allowable operating
pressure of the station piping and equipment was not exceeded by more than 10
percent. Specifically, NFG exceeded the maximum allowable operating pressure on its start gas
line at the Beech Hill Compressor Station by more than 10 percent.
On March 5, 2015, a pressure regulator controlling the gas pressure in the start line and the
pressure in the line downstream of the failed regulator reached 341 psig. The MAOP of this line
is 300 psig, and the maximum pressure allowed during a pressure relieving event is 330
psig. The pressure exceeded the maximum allowed by §192.169(a) by 11 psig.
Evidence for this probable violation includes the NFG-submitted DOT Form F 7100.2 part H, the
manufacturer’s rupture disc information, and NFG Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
(SCADA) logs that showed the pressure in the start gas line exceeded 330 psig at approximately
17:45 (EST) on March 5, 2015.
2. §192.169 Compressor stations: Pressure limiting devices.
(b) Each vent line that exhausts gas from the pressure relief valves of a compressor
station must extend to a location where the gas may be discharged without hazard.
NFG failed to ensure that each vent line that exhausts gas from the pressure relief valves of a
compressor station extends to a location where the gas may be discharged without hazard.
On March 5, 2015, a rupture disc relief device burst, and natural gas was released to the
atmosphere through the vent stack. The gas discharged up the side of the M&R building into the
eave of the building, located approximately ten feet above the top of the vent piping. The force
of this gas flow peeled back the steel flashing from the side of the building. Subsequently, the
gas ignited.
120161005_NOPV PCP PCO_08042016 Page 2 of 6



1-2016-1005
Thus, NFG failed to ensure that each vent line that exhausts gas from the pressure relief valves of
a compressor station extends to a location where the gas may be discharged without hazard.
Evidence for this probable violation includes NYSDPS photographs of the relief stack, NFG
submitted DOT Form F 7100.2, and maps showing the incident location.
3. §192.617 Investigation of failures
Each operator shall establish procedures for analyzing accidents and failures,
including the selection of samples of the failed facility or equipment for laboratory
examination, where appropriate, for the purpose of determining the causes of the
failure and minimizing the possibility of a recurrence.
NFG’s procedures for analyzing accidents and failures failed to include details on how to
determine the causes of the failure, and how to minimize the possibility of a recurrence.
During the failure investigation, NYSDPS reviewed NFG Procedure Section 11.5 Investigation
of Failures, dated 01-13. The procedure states in part that, “All necessary precautions shall be
taken to eliminate a recurrence or similar failure.” The procedure does not provide direction for
determining the root cause of the failure, or direction on how to minimize the possibility of a
recurrence, such as:
1. What is the process for performing the root cause analysis?
2. What is the process for minimizing the possibility of a recurrence?
3. What it the make-up of the investigation team (individual)?
4. What are the qualifications of the personnel on the team?
5. What is the extent of the investigation / how is it determined?
6. What documentation is required?
7. Who is responsible for approving conclusions reached by the investigation team?
8. How are lessons learned applied to other similar facilities?
NFG placed the line back in service without correcting the vent issue that resulted in the fire.
4. §192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of
written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for
emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual must also include
procedures for handling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and
updated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least one each
calendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline
system commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations
where operations and maintenance activities are conducted.
NFG failed to follow, for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for emergency
response. Specifically, NFG failed to notify the NRC of a regulator failure and fire, requiring an
emergency shut down of the station within the required time frame, as specified in NFG
Procedure Section 11.5 Paragraph 11.5.1, dated 07/13.
NFG’s Procedure Section 11.5 Department of Transportation Notification Procedures And
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, paragraph 11.5.1 Incidents, states in part that:
120161005_NOPV PCP PCO_08042016 Page 3 of 6



1-2016-1005
“A. At the earliest practicable moment and not later than one hour following discovery,
notice shall be given in accordance with Paragraph (B) of this section for any release of
gas that:
1. 2. Caused a death, or personal injury necessitating in-patient hospitalization.
Estimated property damage of $50,000 or more, including loss to the operator and
others, or both, but excluding cost of gas lost.
3. Unintentional estimated gas loss of three million cubic feet or more. Engineering
Services should be contacted to calculate gas loss.
4. Any event that in the judgment of the operator was significant, even though it did
not meet the above criteria.”
B. Each notice required by Section (A) will be made by telephone to the
Superintendent. The Superintendent receiving notice of an incident will contact the
National Response Center at 1-800-424-8802. Department of Transportation ("DOT")
notification through the National Response Center ("NRC") is required and should be
made within one hour of confirmed discovery by the Superintendent for any reportable
incident. The local field or station foreman will prepare a draft report on form PHMSA-
F-7100.2, which must also be sent to the Superintendent within 5 days of the incident.”
On March 6, 2015 at 05:19 (EST), NFG’s Station Manager responded to the Beech Hill
Compressor Station, and activated the Emergency Shut Down system. In the afternoon,
NYSDPS Staff interviewed the Station Manager. The Station Manager stated that after he
ensured that the shutdown was successful, he began to make notification calls to NFG personnel,
including Gas Control and the Superintendent. He approximated that these calls were made
around 06:00 (EST). NFG notified the NRC at 09:11 (EST).
This exceeds the reporting requirement in NFG’s procedures by 2 hours and 11 minutes.
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 violations and has recommended that
you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $202,900 as follows:
Item number PENALTY
1 $31,600
2 $149,700
3 $21,600
Warning Items
With respect to Item 4, 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 this item. Failure to do
so may result in additional enforcement action.
120161005_NOPV PCP PCO_08042016 Page 4 of 6



1-2016-1005
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to Items 2 and 3 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, PHMSA proposes to
issue a Compliance Order to NFG. 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). Not responding within 30 days of receipt of this Notice
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.
Please submit all correspondence in this matter to Byron Coy, PE, Director, PHMSA Eastern
Region, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103, W. Trenton, NJ 08628. Please refer to CPF 1-2016-
1005 on each document you submit and please, whenever possible, provide a signed PDF copy
in electronic format. Smaller files may be emailed to Byron.Coy@dot.gov. Larger files should
be sent on a CD accompanied by the original paper copy to the Eastern Region Office.
Additionally, if you choose to respond to this (or any other case), please ensure that any response
letter pertains solely to one CPF case number.
Sincerely,
Byron Coy, PE
Director, Eastern Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Cc: Mr. Kevin Speicher, NYSDPS
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
120161005_NOPV PCP PCO_08042016 Page 5 of 6



1-2016-1005
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (NFG) a
Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance
of NFG with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. In regard to Item 2 of the Notice pertaining to NFG’s failure to ensure that each vent line
that exhausts gas from pressure relief valves at compressor stations extends to a location
where the gas may be discharged without hazard, for all NFG compressor stations in the
State of New York, NFG must submit documentation demonstrating that all relief vent
lines do (or modify as necessary) relieve to a location where the gas may be discharged
without hazard.
2. In regard to Item 2 of the Notice, NFG will have 180 days after receipt of the Final Order
to submit documentation that all relief devices exhaust gas to a location where the gas
may be discharged without hazard.
3. In regard to Item 3 of the Notice pertaining to NFG’s procedures for analyzing accidents
and failures to include details on how to determine the causes of the failure and how to
minimize the possibility of recurrences, NFG must revise the language of its operations
and maintenance (O&M) procedures to address failure investigation, including a process
for root cause analysis.
4. In regard to Item 3 of the Notice, NFG will have 90 days after receipt of the Final Order
to revise its procedures to address failure analysis and follow-up.
5. It is requested (not mandated) that NFG maintains documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total
to Byron Coy, PE, Director, Eastern Region, 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.
120161005_NOPV PCP PCO_08042016 Page 6 of 6

120161005_Closure Letter_07102020_text.pdf

OVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY
July 10, 2020
David Bauer
President
National Fuel Gas Supply Corp.
6363 Main Street
Williamsville, NY 14221
CPF 1-2016-1005
Dear Mr. Bauer:
On April 18, 2019, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued
to National Fuel Gas Supply Corp. a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included
a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the documentation you
provided, and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that you have
complied with the terms of this Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert Burrough
Director, Eastern Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

120161005_Final Order_04182019_text.pdf

April 18, 2019
Mr. David Bauer
President
National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation
6363 Main Street
Williamsville, NY 14221
Re: CPF No. 1-2016-1005
Dear Mr. Bauer:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $53,200, and specifies actions that need to be taken
by National Fuel Gas Supply Corp. to comply with the 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, Eastern Region, this
enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon
the date of mailing as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Robert Burroughs, Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Ms. Brianne K. Kurdock, Counsel, Babst Calland, 805 15th Street, N.W., Suite 601,
Washington, DC 20005
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 )
National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation, ) )
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
CPF No. 1-2016-1005
FINAL ORDER
On March 6, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the New York State
Department of Public Service, as agents for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), responded to and investigated an
incident involving the release of natural gas which ignited at the National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation’s (NFG or Respondent) Beech Hill Compressor Station located in the town of
Wellsville, New York. NFG operates a 2,200-mile pipeline system, which includes 33 storage
fields and 42 compressor stations, from the U.S.–Canadian border at the Niagara River in New
York, into western New York and parts of Pennsylvania.1
As a result of the investigation, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated August 4, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49
C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that
NFG had committed three violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed assessing a total civil
penalty of $202,900 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to
take certain measures to correct two of the alleged violations. The warning item required no
further action, but warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face possible future
enforcement action.
Following a request for an extension of time to respond which was granted, NFG responded to
the Notice by letter dated September 30, 2016 (Response). NFG contested the allegations and
requested a hearing. NFG provided a pre-hearing submission by letter dated May 1, 2017, and a
hearing was subsequently held on May 11, 2017, in West Trenton, New Jersey, before a PHMSA
Presiding Official. At the hearing, which was transcribed, Respondent was represented by
counsel. After the hearing, both parties provided a post-hearing submission on June 12, 2017
(NFG Closing and OPS Closing). The Director provided a recommendation dated August 10,
1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Aug. 4, 2016) (on file with PHMSA), at 1;
https://www nationalfuelgas.com/supply/ (last accessed Nov. 9, 2018).



CPF No. 1-2016-1005
Page 2
2017, and NFG provided a reply to the recommendation dated September 8, 2017.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.169(a), which states:
§ 192.169 Compressor stations: Pressure limiting devices.
(a) Each compressor station must have pressure relief or
other suitable protective devices of sufficient capacity and
sensitivity to ensure that the maximum allowable operating
pressure of the station piping and equipment is not exceeded by
more than 10 percent.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.169(a) by failing to ensure that the
Beech Hill Compressor Station had pressure relief or other suitable protective devices of
sufficient capacity and sensitivity to ensure that the maximum allowable operating pressure
(MAOP) of the station piping and equipment was not exceeded by more than 10 percent.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that the MAOP of a gas line at the station (300 psig) reached 341
psig on March 5, 2015, exceeding the maximum by more than 10 percent.
In its Response and at the hearing, NFG did not contest the fact that the pressure relief device in
question did not have adequate sensitivity to ensure that the MAOP was not exceeded by more
than 10 percent.2 However, Respondent argued that the regulation should be read as two
separate requirements, one for sensitivity and one for capacity, and that OPS must meet the
burden of proof for each.3 NFG further argued that OPS failed to do so with respect to the
capacity requirement and contended that, as a result, this portion of the alleged violation should
be withdrawn and the proposed civil penalty be reduced accordingly.4 OPS disagreed, stating
that the regulation required the device to have both sufficient capacity and sensitivity and the
failure to meet either one of these constituted a violation of the regulation.5
In general, a regulation such as § 192.169(a), which consists of a single sentence, should be read
in its entirety. With respect to NFG’s argument that the alleged violation must be bifurcated and
both lack of capacity and lack of sensitivity must be proven, Respondent cited prior PHMSA
enforcement cases that did not limit PHMSA from issuing multiple citations for violations of
different parts of a regulation.6 In addition to involving very different regulations, however, the
2 Hearing Transcript at 99.
3 NFG Closing at 28.
4 NFG Closing at 29.
5 Hearing Transcript at 99-100.
6 NFG Closing at 28.



CPF No. 1-2016-1005
Page 3
cases cited by Respondent do not establish the proposition that a regulation having multiple
conjunctive requirements requires proof that the operator failed to meet every aspect of them.
To the contrary, they are examples of cases where an operator was cited more than once under
the same code section for violating multiple requirements.
The purpose of the regulation at issue is to prevent significant overpressure events which can
damage the pipe and risk failure. As OPS correctly noted, “A device with sufficient capacity but
insufficient sensitivity cannot prevent an initial pressure increase above 110 percent MAOP,
while a device with sufficient sensitivity but insufficient capacity cannot adequately relieve
overpressure after the device is triggered.”7 NFG acknowledged that the MAOP was exceeded
by more than 10 percent and did not contest the fact that the pressure relief device in question did
not have adequate sensitivity to ensure that the MAOP was not exceeded by more than 10
percent. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find
that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.169(a) by failing to ensure that the Beech Hill
Compressor Station had pressure relief or other suitable protective devices of sufficient capacity
and sensitivity to ensure that the MAOP of the station piping and equipment was not exceeded
by more than 10 percent. To the extent that Respondent’s argument is relevant to the assessment
of a civil penalty, it will be addressed in the Assessment of Penalty section below.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.169(b), which states:
§ 192.169 Compressor stations: Pressure limiting devices.
(a)…
(b) Each vent line that exhausts gas from the pressure relief
valves of a compressor station must extend to a location where
the gas may be discharged without hazard.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.169(b) by failing to ensure that
each vent line that exhausts gas from the pressure relief valves of a compressor station extended
to a location where the gas may be discharged without hazard. Specifically, the Notice alleged
that the vent line that exhausts gas at the Beech Hill Compressor Station discharged gas up the
side of the M&R building into the eaves located approximately ten feet above the top of the vent
piping, and that gas was discharged with a force that peeled back the steel flashing on the
building and that the gas subsequently ignited.
In its Response and at the hearing, NFG stated that there was no regulatory requirement that all
such vent stacks must clear the roof line and any finding that § 192.169(b) involves a height
requirement would be arbitrary and capricious.8 NFG stated that the stack had been in place for
36 years and no prior inspections including one only eight months prior to the incident had
identified a concern with the stack.9 NFG stated that the stack was not near a walkway, the
7 OPS Closing at 3.
8 NFG Pre-hearing Submittal at 20.
9 Hearing Transcript at 19-21.



CPF No. 1-2016-1005
Page 4
building was not combustible, there was no overhang, and no prior inspection had identified a
concern.10 NFG further argued that PHMSA did not prove that the vent stack design caused the
fire. Finally, Respondent argued that even if the stack design was inconsistent with the
regulation, the applicable five-year statute of limitations had long since run and it could not be
penalized for the violation.11
With respect to NFG’s argument that there was no prescriptive code requirement that all vent
stacks must clear the roof line, it does not necessarily follow that no violation occurred. The
regulation at issue is a performance-based regulation. In this case, in light of all the factors that
go into vent stack design, the designers may have proceeded on the assumption that a discharge
from this vent stack would not cause a hazard.12 There is no question, however, that the
discharge in this instance through this stack did cause a hazard. If a design used by an operator
fails to meet a performance standard, yet that operator could not be cited, it would render the
standard virtually meaningless. Therefore, I cannot accept NFG’s argument that the failure to
achieve the performance deemed to be acceptable under § 192.169(b) does not equate to failure
to meet the regulatory requirement. As for Respondent’s argument that under § 192.169(b)
PHMSA was required to prove that the vent stack design caused the ignition, I disagree. The
failure to adequately vent gas away from a gas facility such as a compressor station presents a
hazard regardless of the source of the ignition when an incident involves ignition.
With respect to NFG’s argument that the stack had been in place for many years and no prior
inspection had resulted in a citation does not negate the non-compliance.13 It is well established
that the absence of a citation in a prior inspection does not guarantee that a future inspection or
accident investigation might allege a violation.14
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that
Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.169(b) by failing to ensure that each vent line that exhausts
gas from the pressure relief valves of a compressor station extended to a location where the gas
may be discharged without hazard. Respondent’s argument concerning whether it could be
penalized for this violation given the applicable statute of limitations is addressed in the
Assessment of Penalty section below.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.617, which states:
§ 192.617 Investigation of failures.
Each operator shall establish procedures for analyzing
10 Hearing Transcript at 23-25.
11 NFG Closing at 2-3.
12 Hearing Transcript at 23-24.
13 In some circumstances, this argument may be relevant to mitigating a civil penalty assessment if one were
involved.
14 See ConocoPhillips Pipeline Co., Final Order, CPF No. 3-2005-5015, 2010 WL 6531628, at 2 (Sept. 13, 2010).



CPF No. 1-2016-1005
Page 5
accidents and failures, including the selection of samples of
the failed facility or equipment for laboratory examination,
where appropriate, for the purpose of determining the
causes of the failure and minimizing the possibility of a
recurrence.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.617 by failing to have procedures
for analyzing accidents and failures that included details on how to determine the causes of the
failure and minimizing the possibility of a recurrence. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
NFG’s Procedure Section 11.5.4, Investigation of Failures, stated in relevant part that “All
necessary precautions shall be taken to eliminate a recurrence or similar failure.” but the
procedures did not function to ensure the root cause of the incident was identified and the
possibility of recurrence was minimized.
In its Response and at the hearing, NFG explained that its personnel had completed a “Gas
System Reliability Report” (SRR) pursuant to Procedure Section 5.1.1 which involved producing
a description of the failure and the remedial steps subsequently taken before returning the line to
service including replacing the failed regulator.15 OPS noted that Section 11.5.4 did not contain
a cross-reference to Section 5.1.1.16
While Section 11.5.4 did briefly mention reviewing the operating conditions at the time of a
failure and the possible use of lab analysis to determine the cause of failure for “blowouts,” OPS
is correct that basic failure analysis implementation steps were absent and Section 11.5.4 did not
cross-reference the SRR report provision. Moreover, while NFG stated that it later evaluated its
other compressor stations for venting hazards, there was nothing in Section 11.5.4 to ensure
responsibility for documenting this process by a qualified individual having responsibility for
approving any decisions made or actions taken.17 It appears that no documentation of NFG’s
evaluation of its other compressor stations for the possible presence of the root cause of the
Beech Hill incident—which was not identified before that line was placed back into service—
was provided, illustrating the importance of having such procedures to meet the requirement of
ensuring the possibility of recurrence is minimized.
NFG’s argument that it completed the SRR and replaced the regulator does not negate the failure
to meet the requirements of § 192.617 by failing to have procedures for analyzing accidents and
failures that included details on how to determine the causes of the failure and minimizing the
possibility of a recurrence. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence and the legal
issues presented, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.617 by failing to have
procedures for analyzing accidents and failures that included details on how to determine the
causes of the failure and minimizing the possibility of a recurrence.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
15 NFG Closing at 19.
16 Hearing Transcript at 75.
17 NFG Closing at 20.



CPF No. 1-2016-1005
Page 6
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.18
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 $202,900 for the violations cited above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $31,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.169(a), for failing to ensure that the Beech Hill Compressor Station had pressure relief or
other suitable protective devices of sufficient capacity and sensitivity to ensure that the MAOP of
the station piping and equipment was not exceeded by more than 10 percent. Respondent
disagreed with the amount of the proposed civil penalty and questioned whether it was supported
by the penalty consideration factors in the Pipeline Safety Act and § 190.225 regulations.
With respect to the nature and circumstances of NFG’s violation of § 192.169(b), ensuring that
MAOP is not exceeded by more than 10 percent is a basic code requirement. With respect to the
gravity of the offense, ensuring that MAOP is not exceeded by more than 10 percent is a key part
of safety. If overpressure events occur, they can compromise the integrity of piping and
accelerate the failure of any defects in steel pipe. In this instance, a release of gas and ignition
were involved. Notably, however, the gravity factor for this violation was not assigned at a high
level that would correspond to being a causal factor in an accident, but rather at a medium-to-
lower level.19 With respect to culpability, there were no circumstances beyond Respondent’s
control that prevented it from complying with the regulation and action was not taken to achieve
compliance until after the violation was discovered by OPS. As discussed above, I did not agree
with Respondent’s argument that the violation must be bifurcated and lack of capacity and lack
of sensitivity read as two separate requirements for purposes of finding a violation. For the same
reasons, I see no justification for a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice
for this violation. I further find that the record supports the points assigned for prior offenses and
good faith.
Respondent has presented no information or arguments that would warrant a reduction in the
18 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum
Civil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).
19 Violation Report at 10.



CPF No. 1-2016-1005
Page 7
civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the
record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $31,600 for
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.169(a).
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $149,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.169(b), for failing to ensure that each vent line that exhausts gas from the pressure
relief valves of a compressor station extended to a location where the gas may be discharged
without hazard.
In its response and at the hearing, NFG argued that under 28 U.S.C. § 2462, PHMSA was time-
barred from pursuing “…an action, suit, or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine,
penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise…unless commenced within five years from the
date when the claim first accrued…”.20 NFG contended that the claim first accrued when the
vent stack and the rest of the station were designed and constructed in 1980.21 OPS disagreed
and argued that under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, a new violation occurred every day that that the Beech
Hill facility was not in compliance. OPS’ argument amounts to the proposition that a violation
of a design requirement such as § 192.169(a) can be penalized even decades later.
The application of the statute of limitations in regulatory proceedings such as this is governed by
3M Company v. Browner, 17 F.3d 1453, a major D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals case holding that
the statute of limitations for regulatory violations generally begins running at the time a violation
occurs, not the time it was discovered by the government which is often much later. The court
explains that the purpose of the statute of limitations, disallowing stale cases where the accused
can no longer properly defend itself, would be frustrated if regulated entities remained exposed
to penalties for decades after a discrete violation occurs.22
As applied to most typical pipeline enforcement matters involving ongoing, periodic operating
and maintenance requirements, OPS would be correct that § 60122 means a new violation occurs
each day the noncompliance is present and as a result are generally not time barred as long as the
noncompliance cited does not extend back more than five years from the commencement of the
case.23 This provision, however, only applies if the violation actually repeats itself periodically.
The particular violation in this case involves a design and construction requirement. As NFG
correctly pointed out, design requirements have a very different nature than ongoing operating
and maintenance requirements and a design decision is a discrete event that occurred at one time
in the past (although it should be noted that even design and construction requirement violations
can be subject to time of discovery if the noncompliance is latent or undiscoverable by the
government). This instance, however, presents the relatively rare circumstance where the
violation both involved a design requirement and was discoverable by the government. In these
narrow circumstances, NFG is correct that failing to apply the five-year period from the time a
20 NFG Closing at 3.
21 Id.
22 See Sierra Club v. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, 816 F.3d 666 (10th Cir. 2016).
23 For purposes of applying 28 U.S.C. § 2462, commencement of the case means issuance of the Notice.



CPF No. 1-2016-1005
Page 8
discoverable design requirement was violated when a facility is built would conflict with the
fundamental purpose of the statute of limitations and would be inconsistent with the D.C.
Circuit’s holding in the 3M case. Accordingly, OPS’ argument on this point fails and the agency
is time-barred from imposing civil penalties against NFG for this particular violation.
Based on the foregoing, I withdraw the proposed penalty for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.169(b).
Because the violation also involved a proposed compliance order, which is a remedial action not
a penalty action, the proposed compliance terms for Item 2 are addressed below in the
Compliance Order section.24
Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $21,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.617, for failing to have procedures for analyzing accidents and failures that included
details on how to determine the causes of the failure and minimizing the possibility of a
recurrence. Respondent disagreed with the amount of the proposed civil penalty and questioned
whether it was supported by the penalty consideration factors in the Pipeline Safety Act and
§ 190.225 regulations.
With respect to the nature and circumstances of NFG’s violation of § 192.617, having procedures
for analyzing accidents and failures that included details on how to determine the causes of the
failure and minimizing the possibility of a recurrence is a key part of safety and the non-
compliance was discovered by the OPS inspector. With respect to the gravity of the offense, the
gravity factor for this violation was assigned at a medium-to-lower level commensurate with the
offense.25 With respect to culpability, there were no circumstances beyond Respondent’s control
that prevented it from complying with the regulation and NFG was given credit for making some
effort to have these procedures, albeit not enough to achieve compliance.26 I further find that the
record supports the points assigned for prior offenses and good faith.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $21,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.617.
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 $53,200.
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, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.
The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
24 See United States v. Telluride, 146 F.3d at 1248-49.
25 Violation Report at 26.
26 Violation Report at 27.



CPF No. 1-2016-1005
Page 9
Failure to pay the $53,200 civil penalty will result in 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 2 and 3 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.169(b), and 192.617, respectively. 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.
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. With respect to the violation of § 192.169(b) (Item 2), within 180 days following
receipt of this order, Respondent must submit documentation to the Director showing
that all vent lines that exhaust gas from the pressure relief valves at all compressor
stations located in the State of New York extend to a location where the gas may be
discharged without hazard.
2. With respect to the violation of § 192.617 (Item 3), within 90 days following
receipt of this order, Respondent must submit documentation to the Director showing
that it has revised its procedures for analyzing accidents and failures to set forth the
process steps for how to determine the causes of the failure including analyzing the
root cause and minimizing the possibility of a recurrence.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
It is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the
Director. 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.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for
each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a
district court of the United States.



CPF No. 1-2016-1005
Page 10
WARNING ITEM
With respect to Item 4, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 192 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. § 192.605(a) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its
procedure for telephonic reporting the release to the National Response Center at
the earliest practicable moment but not later than one hour following discovery.
NFG 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.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a petition for reconsideration of this Final
Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of
Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this
Final Order by Respondent. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must contain a
statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a
petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the
order, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon
request, grants a stay.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
April 18, 2019
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

120161005_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_11152019_text.pdf

November 15, 2019
Mr. David Bauer
President and Chief Executive Officer
National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation
6363 Main Street
Williamsville, New York 14221
Re: CPF No. 1-2016-1005
Dear Mr. Bauer:
Enclosed please find the Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration filed by National Fuel Gas
Supply Corporation in the above-referenced case. For the reasons explained therein, the
Decision denies your Petition for Reconsideration. This Decision constitutes the final
administrative action in this preceding. Service of the Decision 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
Associate Administrator
Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Ms. Sarah J. Mugel, General Counsel, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation
Ms. Brianne K. Kurdock, Counsel, Babst Calland, 805 15th Street, NW, Suite 601,
Washington, DC 20005
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 )
)
National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation, ) CPF No. 1-2016-1005
)
Petitioner. )
____________________________________)
DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
In an April 18, 2019 Final Order, I found that National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (NFG or
Petitioner) had committed three separate violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 following an
investigation of an incident involving the release of natural gas which ignited at a gas
compressor station operated by Petitioner in Wellsville, New York.1 I assessed a civil penalty of
$31,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.169(a) (Item 1). I withdrew the proposed civil penalty
of $149,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.169(b) on the grounds that the penalty was time
barred; however, I required that NFG take certain measures to remedy the non-compliance with
this regulation (Item 2). Finally, I assessed a civil penalty of $21,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.617 and required that NFG to take certain measures to remedy the non-compliance with
this regulation (Item 3).
On May 9, 2019, NFG submitted a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Final Order.2
The Petition seeks reconsideration of Items 2 and 3 in the Final Order and requests that these
items be withdrawn.3 Having considered the full record and the legal arguments presented in the
Petition, I am denying the Petition and affirming the Final Order without modification.
Background
On March 5, 2015, a release of natural gas occurred at the Beech Hill Compressor Station
operated by Petitioner in Wellsville, New York. The release was caused by a component failure
that resulted in an over-pressurization event. The escaping gas ignited and resulted in a flash fire
on the exterior of the compressor station facility. In accordance with the Pipeline Safety Act (49
U.S.C. 60101 et. seq.) and the regulations issued thereunder, representatives of the New York
State Department of Public Service, as agents for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
1 National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation, Final Order, CPF No. 1-2016-1005 (April 18, 2019) (Final Order).
2 Letter from Ms. Brianne K. Kurdock, Counsel for National Fuel Gas Supply Corp., to Mr. Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, dated May 9, 2019 (Petition).
3 Id.



CPF No. 1-2016-1005
Page 2
Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), responded to and investigated the
incident.
As a result of the investigation, on August 4, 2016, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director)
issued a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order
(Notice) to Petitioner.4 In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding
that NFG had committed three separate violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192, proposed that a total
civil penalty of $202,900 be assessed for the alleged violations, and proposed requiring NFG to
take certain measures to remedy two of the alleged violations.5
NFG responded to the Notice by letter dated September 30, 2016. NFG contested the allegations
and requested an administrative hearing. A hearing was subsequently held on May 11, 2017, in
West Trenton, New Jersey before a PHMSA Presiding Official. On April 18, 2019, I issued a
Final Order in this case. With respect to Item 1, I determined that Petitioner violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.169(a) by failing to ensure that the Beech Hill Compressor Station had pressure relief or
other suitable protective devices of sufficient capacity and sensitivity to ensure that the
maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of the station piping and equipment was not
exceeded by more than 10 percent. In assessing the civil penalty for this item, I applied the
statutory civil penalty assessment factors including the nature, circumstances, gravity, and
culpability of this violation.6 I noted that ensuring that the MAOP is not exceeded by more than
10 percent is a basic code requirement and a key part of safety. If overpressure events occur,
they can compromise the integrity of piping and accelerate the failure of any defects in steel
pipes. In this instance, a release of gas and ignition were involved. Accordingly, I found that the
proposed civil penalty of $31,600 was supported by the record.
With respect to Item 2, Petitioner violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.169(b) by failing to ensure that each
vent line that exhausts gas from the pressure relief valves of a compressor station extended to a
location where the gas may be discharged without hazard. Although the Notice had proposed a
civil penalty of $149,700 for this item, I did not assess a penalty because the cited regulation
specified a design requirement and the Beech Hill facility had been designed and constructed in
1980, well over five years prior to the commencement of this case. Accordingly, I found that
under 28 U.S.C. § 2462, PHMSA was time-barred from penalizing NFG for this violation. The
requirement for NFG to take certain measures to remedy the noncompliance was maintained as
proposed in the Notice.
With respect to Item 3, Petitioner violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.617 by failing to have procedures for
analyzing accidents and failures that included details on how to determine the causes of the
failure and minimizing the possibility of a recurrence. In assessing the civil penalty for this item,
I applied the civil penalty assessment factors including the nature, circumstances, gravity, and
culpability of this violation. I noted that having procedures for analyzing accidents and failures
that include details on how to determine the causes of the failure and minimizing the possibility
of a recurrence is a key part of safety and found that the proposed civil penalty amount in the
4 Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order, CPF No. 1-2016-1005
(August 4, 2016).
5 The proposed civil penalty amounts for the three violations were $31,600, $149,700, and $21,600 respectively.
The Notice also alleged non-compliance with a fourth regulation which was reduced to a warning item.
6 49 U.S.C. § 60122(b).



CPF No. 1-2016-1005
Page 3
Notice had already given NFG credit for making some effort to have these procedures, albeit not
enough to achieve compliance. Accordingly, I found that the proposed civil penalty of $21,600
was supported by the record. The requirement for NFG to take certain measures to remedy the
noncompliance was maintained as proposed in the Notice.
On May 9, 2019, NFG submitted a petition requesting reconsideration of the remedial
requirement for Item 2, and the civil penalty of $21,600 for Item 3.
Standard of Review
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, a respondent is afforded the right to petition the Associate
Administrator for reconsideration of a Final Order. However, that right is not an appeal or an
opportunity to seek a de novo review of the record.7 It is a venue for presenting the Associate
Administrator with information that was not previously available or requesting that any errors in
the Final Order be corrected. Requests for consideration of additional facts or arguments must
be supported by a statement of reasons as to why those facts or arguments were not presented
prior to the issuance of the Final Order. Repetitious information or arguments will not be
considered.
Analysis
With respect to Item 2, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $149,700 be assessed for having a
vent line that did not extend to a location where the gas may be discharged without hazard. As
explained above, however, I completely withdrew this proposed civil penalty at the Final Order
stage because I agreed with NFG’s argument at the hearing that under 28 U.S.C. § 2462,
PHMSA was time-barred from penalizing NFG for this violation.8
In its Petition, however, NFG argues that in addition to the civil penalty being time barred, the
compliance order requiring NFG to take certain measures to remedy the noncompliance is also
time barred. Petitioner cites a U.S. Supreme Court case, Kokesh v. Security and Exchange
Commission, in which the court found that a claim by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) for the disgorgement of $34.9 million by Mr. Kokesh, an investment advisor who
fraudulently misappropriated funds and violated securities laws, constituted a penalty for
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2462.9 The court found that depriving a violator of a public law of his
ill-gotten gains was done by the SEC for the primary purpose of deterrence and therefore
constituted a penalty. The Kokesh case establishes that disgorgement is punitive.
The issue presented in this case is whether a safety-related regulatory compliance order is
punitive. The remedial requirement that Petitioner argues should constitute a penalty in this case
reads, in its entirety:
With respect to the violation of § 192.169(b) (Item 2), within 180 days
following receipt of this order, Respondent must submit documentation
7 49 C.F.R. § 190.243(a)-(d).
8 Final Order, at 7-8.
9 Kokesh v. SEC, 137 S.Ct. 1635 (2017).



CPF No. 1-2016-1005
Page 4
to the Director showing that all vent lines that exhaust gas from the
pressure relief valves at all compressor stations located in the State of
New York extend to a location where the gas may be discharged without
hazard.
Petitioner argues that PHMSA’s remedial requirement seeking documentation showing that vent
stack compliance is being achieved at its other vented compressor stations to ensure that a hazard
is not present should be treated as a “penalty” in the same manner as a $34.9 million
disgorgement action under the securities laws.
While Petitioner is certainly correct that the word “penalty” in 28 U.S.C. § 2462 is not limited to
monetary penalties, the question is whether the remedial requirement in this particular case meets
the Supreme Court’s test for determining what constitutes a penalty for purposes of 28 U.S.C.
§ 2462. First, we must recognize that the Kokesh disgorgement proceeding involved an entirely
different remedial scheme and materially different statutory authorities. Disgorgement is an
equitable remedy and often exceeds the profits gained leaving the defendant worse off which is a
major factor in determining that disgorgement constitutes a penalty.
Unlike the SEC, however, PHMSA is a public safety agency. Its mission is to protect people,
property, and the environment from the risks posed by the transportation of flammable and
hazardous products by pipelines and pipeline facilities.10 Ensuring compliance with safety
requirements, whether issued by a state fire marshal or a federal agency such as PHMSA, is very
different from SEC disgorgement actions involving the collection of and recoupment of ill-gotten
monetary gains from persons who defraud investors and commit securities violations.
PHMSA’s statutory authority to issue a compliance order is found at 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and
reads:
The Secretary of Transportation may issue orders directing
compliance with this chapter, an order under section 60126,
or a regulation prescribed under this chapter. An order shall
state clearly the action a person must take to comply.
Therefore, Congress expressly authorized the Secretary to issue compliance orders when
determined to be appropriate by the Secretary. While PHMSA also has statutory authority to
assess administrative civil penalties (which I agreed were time barred in this case), this civil
penalty authority is found in 49 U.S.C. 60122(a), a completely separate section of title 49.
Notably, the civil penalty authority in 49 U.S.C. § 60122 includes a tool for depriving violators
of ill-gotten gains known as the “economic benefit” calculation option in connection with a civil
penalty proceeding.11 That authority was never used in this case, not even in the proposed civil
penalty in the Notice which was eliminated.
PHMSA’s order in this case seeks to ensure that any identified deviations from federal safety
standards are rectified in order to protect the public’s safety. Petitioner contended that the
10 49 U.S.C. § 60102(a).
11 The economic benefit authority is found at 49 U.S.C. § 60122(b)(2)(A).



CPF No. 1-2016-1005
Page 5
remedial requirement was done for the purpose of deterrence and cited section 3, paragraph
3.1.1.4 of PHMSA’s Enforcement Manual which outlines PHMSA’s compliance order
authority.12 However, the word “deterrence” does not actually appear in this provision, nor does
it appear in 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) or anywhere else in the federal pipeline safety laws or
regulations.13 Petitioner also asserted its belief that a compliance order is intended to punish the
Respondent. Petitioner, however, could not be more wrong on this point. As the Associate
Administrator for Pipeline Safety, I can attest to the fact that correcting a current lack of
compliance to achieve safety and protect the public is the sole reason for issuing a compliance
order. 14
Petitioner also argues that an operator in its position cannot be cited for a regulatory violation at
all because it would stigmatize the pipeline company by labeling it as a wrongdoer.15 This
argument may be material in the case of an individual person who loses a securities license for
non-compliance with an applicable regulation because a finding of violation itself could be seen
as stigmatizing that person. It could potentially harm their future employment prospects to an
extent that no regulatory relief of any type could be sought without the implication of
punishment. Such a rationale, however, is not material in the case of a large oil and gas pipeline
company that operates hundreds or thousands of miles of pipelines. Due to the inherent risks
associated with the transportation of large volumes of flammable, toxic, and otherwise hazardous
substances, operators are subject to a complex and multilayered regulatory regime involving
regular inspections and compliance proceedings. It would not be realistic for a large pipeline
operator such as NFG to expect that it will have zero history of citations, and one citation more-
or-less does not significantly alter the company’s business prospects. Within this context, the
company’s perceived reputation is simply irrelevant.
The record in this case does not provide a basis to conclude that the remedial requirement
regarding the gas compressor station vents was either ordered as a punishment or for deterrence.
Rather the compliance order was intended to ensure that any known safety hazards to the public
are eliminated. Accordingly, the remedial requirement is not time barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2462.
It should be emphasized that the purpose of the compliance order in this case is to ensure that
Petitioner’s gas vent stacks are compliant with applicable regulations and that any documented
deviations are rectified. Such agency action was not done for the purpose of deterrence, does not
constitute a penalty, and the Petitioner earns no right to operate a pipeline system in violation of
existing safety regulations in perpetuity merely because the safety deficiency has existed for
more than five years.
12 Petition, at 4.
13 It is not disputed that a monetary civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122(a) is intended at least in part to have a
deterrent effect.
14 While a failure to satisfy a compliance order may entail consequences in a future inspection, such a directive falls
outside of the scope of the Supreme Court’s “punitive” definition in Kokesh.
15 Petition, at 6. Petitioner inaccurately characterized PHMSA case as merely seeking declaratory relief and
suggested that PHMSA could utilize a Corrective Action Order or a Safety Order because these actions are based on
a finding that an operator’s facility is hazardous as opposed to being out of compliance. The hypothetical
reputational damage Petitioner purports would be associated with non-compliance would be no less so if PHMSA
had utilized a Corrective Action Orders or Safety Order and labeled its facility as “a hazardous facility.”



CPF No. 1-2016-1005
Page 6
Item 3
With respect to Item 3, Petitioner contends that the $21,600 civil penalty assessed for its
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.617 by lacking detailed written procedures for analyzing accidents
and failures should be reduced or eliminated because its written procedures had been reviewed in
previous inspections and proceedings and it had not been penalized previously. In its Petition,
NFG asserted that in a 2012 enforcement case CPF 1-2012-1023M, PHMSA reviewed and
deemed acceptable the same procedure at issue in Item 3. NFG contended that this 2012
proceeding estopped PHMSA from any future finding of non-compliance with its procedures in
this area.
While PHMSA’s February 20, 2013 Closure Letter in case CPF 1-2012-1023M did state that
NFG had corrected the inadequacies outlined in PHMSA’s Notice of Amendment, PHMSA did
not state that Petitioner did not need to make any further changes to § 11.5.4. In that case,
PHMSA reviewed NFG’s procedures, alleged a specific failure to provide adequate guidance in
§ 11.5.4 concerning sample collection processes, and later accepted NFG’s revised sample-
collection procedures as a correction to the specified inadequacy. PHMSA’s statements in that
closure letter did not constitute a blanket approval of all NFG’s procedures, nor did it absolve
NFG of any future violations concerning the procedures that were inspected. Different
inspections tend to focus on different aspects of the pipeline operation and the manner in which
the procedures are carried out. It is well established in prior PHMSA enforcement actions that
the absence of a finding of non-compliance in one inspection does not preclude a future
enforcement action if non-compliance is later identified.16
RELIEF DENIED
Based on the information provided in the Petition, a review of the record, and for the reasons
stated above, I am affirming the Final Order without modification. The Request to Stay
Paragraph 1 of the Compliance Order on pages 9-11 of the Petition is dismissed as moot.
This Decision is the final administrative action in this proceeding.
November 15, 2019
_____________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
16 See ConocoPhillips Pipeline Co., Final Order, CPF No. 3-2005-5015, 2010 WL 6531628, at *2 (PHMSA Sept.
13, 2010) (“review of procedures during an inspection [does not] constitute approval of procedures by [the Office of
Pipeline Safety]”).

## Provenance

- Official: Yes
- Source: <https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120161005>
- Source ID: `phmsa-enforcement`
- SHA-256: `80a1fb4856f2874f81071c8a5caf8c506c6d52531ae238a466cdfd19c712f78a`
- Retrieved: 2026-08-20T04:44:44.458Z
- Exported: 2026-08-22T15:28:03.590Z
- Document slug: `phmsa-enforcement-120161005`

### Source metadata

```json
{
  "cpf": "120161005",
  "operator": "NATIONAL FUEL GAS SUPPLY CORP",
  "region": "Eastern",
  "pipelineType": "GAS INTERSTATE ONSHORE",
  "caseStatus": "CLOSED",
  "citedSections": [
    "192.169(a)",
    "192.169(b)",
    "192.605(a)",
    "192.617"
  ],
  "dataAsOf": "08/04/2026 12PM",
  "caseDataAsOf": "2026-08-04",
  "attachmentCount": 11,
  "attachments": [
    {
      "name": "120161005_Closure Letter_07102020.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161005/120161005_Closure%20Letter_07102020.pdf",
      "bytes": 692523,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "120161005_Closure Letter_07102020_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161005/120161005_Closure%20Letter_07102020_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 78019,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "120161005_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_11152019.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161005/120161005_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_11152019.pdf",
      "bytes": 1229796,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "120161005_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_11152019_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161005/120161005_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_11152019_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 140927,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "120161005_Final Order_04182019.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161005/120161005_Final%20Order_04182019.pdf",
      "bytes": 4100414,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "120161005_Final Order_04182019_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161005/120161005_Final%20Order_04182019_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 172002,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "120161005_NOPV PCP PCO_08042016.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161005/120161005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08042016.pdf",
      "bytes": 4051771,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "120161005_NOPV PCP PCO_08042016_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161005/120161005_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_08042016_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 127571,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "120161005_Operator Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Stay_05092019.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161005/120161005_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration%20and%20Request%20for%20Stay_05092019.pdf",
      "bytes": 1743742,
      "category": "party_submission"
    },
    {
      "name": "120161005_Operator Post-Hearing Submissions_06122017.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161005/120161005_Operator%20Post-Hearing%20Submissions_06122017.pdf",
      "bytes": 1370012,
      "category": "case_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "120161005_Operator Response to Notice  And Request for Hearing_09302016.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120161005/120161005_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20%20And%20Request%20for%20Hearing_09302016.pdf",
      "bytes": 876064,
      "category": "party_submission"
    }
  ],
  "extractedAgencyDocumentCount": 4,
  "attachmentPolicy": "Official attachment links are retained. Agency-issued documents may also include a verified local PDF and page-level text representation.",
  "jurisdiction": "US",
  "operatorName": "NATIONAL FUEL GAS SUPPLY CORP"
}
```