{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320031009","title":"NORTHERN NATURAL GAS CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2003-09-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.605(a), 192.609(f), 192.611(d), 192.619(a)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320031009.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320031009.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320031009","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320031009","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving NORTHERN NATURAL GAS CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.605(a),  192.609(f),  192.611(d),  192.619(a)(1). The case was opened on 2003-09-15 and is reported as closed as of 2006-02-27. Proposed civil penalty: $205,000. Assessed civil penalty: $205,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320031009_Final Order_02162006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320031009/320031009_Final%20Order_02162006.pdf\n\nCPF NO  3-2003-1009 NORTHERN NATURAL GAS CO .pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320031009/CPF%20NO%20%203-2003-1009%20NORTHERN%20NATURAL%20GAS%20CO%20.pdf\n\n320031009_Final Order_02162006.pdf\n\n@\nU.S. Deportment\nof Tronsportotion\nPipeline ond\nHqzordou3 Moteriols Sofefy\nAclministrotion\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C.20590\nrEB 1 6 l'{,ii}+\nMr. Royce Ramsay\nVice President of Operations\nNorthem Natural Gas Comoanv\n1111 South 103'd Street\nOmaha, NE 68124\nRe: CPF No. 3-2003-1009\nDear Mr. Ramsay:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in\nthe above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of\n$205,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement\naction closes automatically upon payment. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service\nof that document under 49 C.F.R. S 190.5.\nSincerely,\nIr\n\\ lr1\nf)..\"- f e,-__\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Ivan Huntoon\nDirector, Central Region, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\nNorthern Natural Gas Company,\nRespondent.\nCPF No.3-2003-1009\nFINAL ORDER\nDuring 1999 and 2000, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. S 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) conducted an on-site pipeline safety\ninspection of Respondent's New Lisbon pipeline facilities and records in Wisconsin. As a result\nof the inspection, the Director, Central Region, PHMSA, issued to Respondent, by letter dated\nSeptember 15,2003, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. S 190.207,the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had\ncommitted violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $205,000\nfor the alleged violations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated October 15, 2[03,as supplemented by letter\ndated January 10, 2005 (Response). Respondent contested the allegations in part, offered\ninformation to explain the allegations, described the corrective measures it has taken, and\nrequested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated. Respondent did not request a\nhearing, and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem 1 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. S 192.609 by failing to complete\na class location study following an apparent population increase along its pipeline near Spring\nGreen, Wisconsin until several years after the increased housing had been constructed. Section\n192.609 requires a pipeline operator to promptly conduct a class location study following an\nincrease in population density that indicates a change in class location. In its response,\nRespondent acknowledged that although the expansion of the housing development known as the\nOak Ridge Estates Trailer Court had occurred by 1924, it failed to include the trailer court in\nmaking its class location determinations until 1998.' Accordingly, I find that Respondent\nI There was never any dispute that the trailer court was within 220 yards (200 meters) of the centerline of the\npipeline. Although Respondent and OPS disagreed about whether the change in class location actually occurred in\n\n\n\n2\nviolated S 192.609 by failing to timely cornplete a class location study following a population\nincrease along its pipeline.\nItem2 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. S 192.611(d) bV failing to\nconfirm or revise the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of its pipeline within 18\nmonths following a change in class location. In its response, Respondent acknowledged that new\npiping to meet the requirements of the appropriate MAOP was not in place until 1999.\nTherefore, at least several years elapsed between the change in class location and the corrective\nmeasures. Accordingly,I find that Respondent violated g 192.611(d) by failing to confirm or\nrevise the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of its pipeline within l8 months\nfollowing a change in class location.\nItem 3 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. S 192.605(a) by faiting to\nadequately conduct continuing surveillance of its facilities in accordance with the operating\nprocedures it established under $ 192.613(a). Section 192.613(a) requires a pipeline operator to\nestablish procedures for continuing surveillance of its facilities to determine and take appropriate\naction concerning changes in class location. In its response, Respondent explained that it\nbelieved that its personnel did follow the applicable procedures for conducting surveillance, but\nacknowledged that in practice its methods failed to detect the encroaching trailer homes.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violated S 192.605(a) by failing to adequately conduct\ncontinuing surveillance of its facilities in accordance with the operating procedures established\nunder $ 192.613(a).\nItem 4 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. S 192.619(a)(1) by operating a\nsegment of pipeline at a pressure that exceeded the maximum design pressure determined by the\napplicable MAOP criteria. Specifically, the Notice alleged that between August l,1997 and\nSeptember 30, 1999 the actual operating pressure exieeded the Class 2 MAOP of 866 psig on at\nleast 268 days. In its response, Respondent explained that had it detected the increased housing\nand correctly assigned the proper class location, it would have revised the MAOP. Respondent,\nhowever, did not contest the facts as alleged. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated $\n192.619(a)(1) bV operating a segment of pipeline at a pressure that exceeded the maximum\ndesign pressure determined by the applicable MAOP criteria.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. S 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $500,000 for any related series of\nviolations.\n1990 or in 1994, we need not reach this question as it is not determinative to this case.\n\n\n\nJ\n49 U.S.C. S 60122 ard 49 C.F.R. S 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\ndegree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to\npay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on\nRespondent's ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.\nWith respect to Item 1, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $20,000 for Respondent's failure to\ncomplete a class location study following a population increase along its pipeline. Timely\ncompletion of a class location study is an important part of pipeline safety because operators are\nobligated to manage the additional risks associated with increased population in the vicinity of a\npipeline. In its response, Respondent explained that its failure to acknowledge the trailers in the\nOak Ridge Estates Trailer Court was largely due to the fact that the view of the trailer court was\nobscured by a wooded area between the pipeline right-of-way and the trailers. However,\nRespondent failed to explain why other means such as aerial surveillance were not used.\nRespondent has presented no information that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty\namount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, I assess Respondent a civil\npenalty of $20,000 for violating 49 C.F.R. $ 192.609.\nWith respect to Item Z,theNotice proposed a civil penalty of $20,000 for Respondent's failure to\nconfirm or revise the MAOP of its pipeline within l8 months following a change in class\nlocation. In its response, Respondent explained that had it detected the increased housing and\nconectly assigned the proper class location, it would have confirmed or revised the MAOP at the\ntime the housing was constructed. Respondent, however, has presented no information that\nwould justiff this failure or would otherwise warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount\nproposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$20,000 for violating 49 C.F.R. g 192.611(d).\nWith respect to ltem 3, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $90,000 for Respondent's failure to\nadequately conduct continuing surveillance of its facilities in accordance with the operating\nprocedures established under $ 192.613(a). We acknowledge that Respondent subsequently took\ncorrective measures including making significant improvements to its surveillance program.\nRespondent, however, has presented no information that would warrant a reduction in the civil\npenalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, I assess Respondent a\ncivil penalty of $90,000 for violating 49 C.F.R. g 192.605(a).\nWith respect to Item 4,the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $75,000 for operating a segment of\npipeline at a pressure that exceeded the maximum design pressure determined by the applicable\nMAOP criteria. In its response, Respondent explained that had it detected the increased housing\nand correctly assigned the proper class location, it would have confirmed or revised the MAOP at\nthe time the housing was constructed and thereby avoided this violation. Respondent, however,\nhas presented no information that would justi$ this failure or would otherwise warrant a\nreduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, I\nassess Respondent a civil penalty of $75,000 for violating 49 C.F.R. 5 192.619(aX1).\n\n\n\n4\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a total civil penalty of $205,000.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. S 89.21(b)(3)) require this payment 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 (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Adrninistration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-4719.\nFailure to pay the $205,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual\nrate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. S 3717, 31 C.F.R. S 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. S 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, alate penalty charge of six percent (6%) perannum 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 United\nStates District Court.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. $ 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a petition for reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be received within 20 days\nof Respondent's receipt of this Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s).\nThe filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However if\nRespondent submits payment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final\nadministrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and\nconditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt.\nn.$-\"l\\\nAdministrator for Pipeline Safetv\nFE* ?6\nDate Issued\nbh","truncated":false,"body_characters":12354}