# NORTHERN NATURAL GAS CO — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

320031009_Final Order_02162006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320031009/320031009_Final%20Order_02162006.pdf

CPF 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

320031009_Final Order_02162006.pdf

@
U.S. Deportment
of Tronsportotion
Pipeline ond
Hqzordou3 Moteriols Sofefy
Aclministrotion
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.20590
rEB 1 6 l'{,ii}+
Mr. Royce Ramsay
Vice President of Operations
Northem Natural Gas Comoanv
1111 South 103'd Street
Omaha, NE 68124
Re: CPF No. 3-2003-1009
Dear Mr. Ramsay:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in
the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of
$205,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement
action closes automatically upon payment. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service
of that document under 49 C.F.R. S 190.5.
Sincerely,
Ir
\ lr1
f).."- f e,-__
James Reynolds
Pipeline Compliance Registry
Office of Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Ivan Huntoon
Director, Central Region, OPS
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
In the Matter of
Northern Natural Gas Company,
Respondent.
CPF No.3-2003-1009
FINAL ORDER
During 1999 and 2000, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. S 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) conducted an on-site pipeline safety
inspection of Respondent's New Lisbon pipeline facilities and records in Wisconsin. As a result
of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, PHMSA, issued to Respondent, by letter dated
September 15,2003, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In
accordance with 49 C.F.R. S 190.207,the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had
committed violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $205,000
for the alleged violations.
Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated October 15, 2[03,as supplemented by letter
dated January 10, 2005 (Response). Respondent contested the allegations in part, offered
information to explain the allegations, described the corrective measures it has taken, and
requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated. Respondent did not request a
hearing, and therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
Item 1 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. S 192.609 by failing to complete
a class location study following an apparent population increase along its pipeline near Spring
Green, Wisconsin until several years after the increased housing had been constructed. Section
192.609 requires a pipeline operator to promptly conduct a class location study following an
increase in population density that indicates a change in class location. In its response,
Respondent acknowledged that although the expansion of the housing development known as the
Oak Ridge Estates Trailer Court had occurred by 1924, it failed to include the trailer court in
making its class location determinations until 1998.' Accordingly, I find that Respondent
I There was never any dispute that the trailer court was within 220 yards (200 meters) of the centerline of the
pipeline. Although Respondent and OPS disagreed about whether the change in class location actually occurred in



2
violated S 192.609 by failing to timely cornplete a class location study following a population
increase along its pipeline.
Item2 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. S 192.611(d) bV failing to
confirm or revise the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of its pipeline within 18
months following a change in class location. In its response, Respondent acknowledged that new
piping to meet the requirements of the appropriate MAOP was not in place until 1999.
Therefore, at least several years elapsed between the change in class location and the corrective
measures. Accordingly,I find that Respondent violated g 192.611(d) by failing to confirm or
revise the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of its pipeline within l8 months
following a change in class location.
Item 3 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. S 192.605(a) by faiting to
adequately conduct continuing surveillance of its facilities in accordance with the operating
procedures it established under $ 192.613(a). Section 192.613(a) requires a pipeline operator to
establish procedures for continuing surveillance of its facilities to determine and take appropriate
action concerning changes in class location. In its response, Respondent explained that it
believed that its personnel did follow the applicable procedures for conducting surveillance, but
acknowledged that in practice its methods failed to detect the encroaching trailer homes.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated S 192.605(a) by failing to adequately conduct
continuing surveillance of its facilities in accordance with the operating procedures established
under $ 192.613(a).
Item 4 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. S 192.619(a)(1) by operating a
segment of pipeline at a pressure that exceeded the maximum design pressure determined by the
applicable MAOP criteria. Specifically, the Notice alleged that between August l,1997 and
September 30, 1999 the actual operating pressure exieeded the Class 2 MAOP of 866 psig on at
least 268 days. In its response, Respondent explained that had it detected the increased housing
and correctly assigned the proper class location, it would have revised the MAOP. Respondent,
however, did not contest the facts as alleged. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated $
192.619(a)(1) bV operating a segment of pipeline at a pressure that exceeded the maximum
design pressure determined by the applicable MAOP criteria.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. S 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per
violation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $500,000 for any related series of
violations.
1990 or in 1994, we need not reach this question as it is not determinative to this case.



J
49 U.S.C. S 60122 ard 49 C.F.R. S 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil
penalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,
degree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to
pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on
Respondent's ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.
With respect to Item 1, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $20,000 for Respondent's failure to
complete a class location study following a population increase along its pipeline. Timely
completion of a class location study is an important part of pipeline safety because operators are
obligated to manage the additional risks associated with increased population in the vicinity of a
pipeline. In its response, Respondent explained that its failure to acknowledge the trailers in the
Oak Ridge Estates Trailer Court was largely due to the fact that the view of the trailer court was
obscured by a wooded area between the pipeline right-of-way and the trailers. However,
Respondent failed to explain why other means such as aerial surveillance were not used.
Respondent has presented no information that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty
amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, I assess Respondent a civil
penalty of $20,000 for violating 49 C.F.R. $ 192.609.
With respect to Item Z,theNotice proposed a civil penalty of $20,000 for Respondent's failure to
confirm or revise the MAOP of its pipeline within l8 months following a change in class
location. In its response, Respondent explained that had it detected the increased housing and
conectly assigned the proper class location, it would have confirmed or revised the MAOP at the
time the housing was constructed. Respondent, however, has presented no information that
would justiff this failure or would otherwise warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount
proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of
$20,000 for violating 49 C.F.R. g 192.611(d).
With respect to ltem 3, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $90,000 for Respondent's failure to
adequately conduct continuing surveillance of its facilities in accordance with the operating
procedures established under $ 192.613(a). We acknowledge that Respondent subsequently took
corrective measures including making significant improvements to its surveillance program.
Respondent, however, has presented no information that would warrant a reduction in the civil
penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, I assess Respondent a
civil penalty of $90,000 for violating 49 C.F.R. g 192.605(a).
With respect to Item 4,the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $75,000 for operating a segment of
pipeline at a pressure that exceeded the maximum design pressure determined by the applicable
MAOP criteria. In its response, Respondent explained that had it detected the increased housing
and correctly assigned the proper class location, it would have confirmed or revised the MAOP at
the time the housing was constructed and thereby avoided this violation. Respondent, however,
has presented no information that would justi$ this failure or would otherwise warrant a
reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, I
assess Respondent a civil penalty of $75,000 for violating 49 C.F.R. 5 192.619(aX1).



4
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a total civil penalty of $205,000.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. S 89.21(b)(3)) require this payment 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 (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Adrninistration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-4719.
Failure to pay the $205,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual
rate 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
those same authorities, alate penalty charge of six percent (6%) perannum 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 United
States District Court.
Under 49 C.F.R. $ 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a petition for reconsideration of
this Final Order. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be received within 20 days
of Respondent's receipt of this Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s).
The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However if
Respondent submits payment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final
administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and
conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt.
n.$-"l\
Administrator for Pipeline Safetv
FE* ?6
Date Issued
bh
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 12354