{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320051013","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":"2005-06-16","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.201(a), 192.465(d), 192.481(c), 192.605(a), 192.705(a), 192.705(b), 192.739(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320051013.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320051013.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320051013","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320051013","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving NORTHERN NATURAL GAS CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192,  192.201(a),  192.465(d),  192.481(c),  192.605(a),  192.705(a),  192.705(b),  192.739(a). The case was opened on 2005-06-16 and is reported as closed as of 2008-06-13. Proposed civil penalty: $15,000. Assessed civil penalty: $12,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320051013_Final Order_05122008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320051013/320051013_Final%20Order_05122008.pdf\n\n320051013_final order_05122008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320051013/320051013_final%20order_05122008_text.pdf\n\n320051013_final order_05122008_text.pdf\n\nU S Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 hleirr Jersey yrve S E\nWashrnrgtnn DC SOt90\nHAY j. .\n\" PtIO8\nMr. Royce Ramsay\nVice President, Operations\nNorthern Natural Gas Company\n1111 South 103' Street\nOmaha, NE 68124-1000\nRe: CPF No. 3-2005-1013\nDear Mr. Ramsay:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $12, 500. It further finds that you have completed the\nactions specified in the Notice required to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the\ncivil penalty is paid, this enforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of the Final Order\nconstitutes service of that document under 49 C. F R. $ 190. 5. Thank you for your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nI\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ivan Huntoon\nDirector, Central Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\n\n\n\nU. S. DEPARTMENT 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\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\nCPF No. 3-2005-1013\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween June 21 and September 2, 2004, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. $ 60117, representatives of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), the Minnesota Office of\nPipeline Safety (MNOPS), the Michigan Public Service Commission (MI-PSC), and the Iowa\nUtilities Board (IUB) conducted on-site pipeline safety inspections of Northern Natural Gas\nCompany's (Respondent's) facilities and records in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Iowa.\nAs a result of these inspections, the Director, Central Region, PHMSA, issued to Respondent, by\nletter dated June 16, 2005, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Respondent had committed violations of 49 C. F. R. Part 192 and proposed assessing\na civil penalty of $15, 000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice further\ncontained a warning that Respondent had committed certain other probable violations of 49\nC. F. R. Part 192 and advised Respondent to take appropriate corrective action or face potential\nenforcement action in the future,\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated July 18, 2005, as supplemented by letters\ndated December 7, 2005, March 23, 2006, and May 1, 2006 (collectively, Response).\nRespondent did not contest the allegations of violation but offered explanations and information\nin mitigation of the proposed civil penalty and described the corrective actions it had taken.\nRespondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one,\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F, R. $ 192. 465(d), which states:\n\n\n\ng 192. 465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each pipeline that is under cathodic protection must be tested at least once each\ncalendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine whether the\ncathodic protection meets the requirements of $ 192. 463. However, if tests at those\nintervals are impractical for separately protected short sections of mains or\ntransmission lines, not in excess of 100 feet (30 meters), or separately protected\nservice lines, these pipelines may be surveyed on a sampling basis. At least 10 percent\nof these protected structures, distributed over the entire system must be surveyed each\ncalendar year, with a different 10 percent checked each subsequent year, so that the\nentire system is tested in each 10-year period.\n(b) \"—\n(d) Each operator shall take prompt remedial action to correct any\ndeficiencies indicated by the monitoring.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to take prompt remedial action to correct\npipe-to-soil readings below the -0. 85v criteria at the Michigan Highway M-35 casing crossing\nduring the 2002-2004 period.\nIn its Response, Respondent did not contest the allegation in the Notice. Accordingly, after\nconsidering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. ) 192. 465(d), as more\nfully described in the Notice.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 481(c), which states:\ng 192. 481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a)\"\"\n(c) If atmospheric corrosion is found during an inspection, the\noperator must provide protection against the corrosion as required by $192. 479.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to provide protection against atmospheric\ncorrosion at the Superior ¹I TBS 782011, noting that corrosion was observed on several\ncomponents at the location.\nIn its Response, Respondent did not contest the allegation in the Notice. Accordingly, after\nconsidering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. ) 192. 481(c), as more\nfully described in the Notice.\nItem 4a: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 705(a), which states:\ng 192. 705 Transmission lines: Patrolling.\n(a) Each operator shall have a patrol program to observe surface conditions on and\nadjacent to the transmission line right-of-way for mdications of leaks,\nconstruction activity, and other factors affecting safety and operation.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to inspect the surface conditions in the\nspecified areas of the North Branch, MN, unit.\n\n\n\nRespondent's use of aerial patrolling was ineffective due to vegetation overgrowth, In its\nResponse, Respondent did not dispute the allegation in the Notice that the specified areas were\nunobservable from the air due to overgrowth. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence,\nI find that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R, $ 192. 705(a), as more fully described in the Notice.\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. $ 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100, 000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1, 000, 000 for any related series of\nviolations.\n49 U. S. C $ 60122 and 49 C. F, R. ) 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\nto pay 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 2, the Notice proposed that a civil penalty of $5, 000 be assessed against\nRespondent for violating 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 481(c) for its failure to provide protection against\natmospheric corrosion at the Superior ¹1 TBS 782011. Monitoring for and protecting against\natmospheric corrosion is an important part of properly maintaining a pipeline system and\nensuring safety. In its Response, Respondent acknowledged the presence of atmospheric\ncorrosion at the specified location and provided information concerning its process for evaluating\ncorrosion features. Specifically, Respondent provided evidence that the corrosion concern at the\nSuperior ¹1 TBS was already scheduled for remediation prior to the on-site inspection by\nPHMSA. Respondent further demonstrated that the corrosion mitigation was completed in the\nfall of 2004 as part of its scheduled riser recoat project. Based upon Respondent's good faith\nefforts to achieve compliance prior to the inspection, I find that a 50 percent reduction in the civil\npenalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation is warranted. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$2, 500 for violating $ 192 481(c).\nWith respect to Item 4(a), the Notice proposed that a civil penalty of $10, 000 be assessed against\nRespondent for violating 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 705(a) for its failure to inspect the surface conditions\nin the specified areas of the North Branch, MN unit. Thorough and consistent performance of\npipeline right-of-way patrols is an important part of pipeline safety because these patrols can\nalert operators to indications of construction activity, leaks, and other factors potentially\naffecting safety and operation. Methods of patrolling include walking, driving, and aerial patrols\nbut the method selected by the operator must be capable of inspecting the surface conditions.\nIn its Response, Respondent did not dispute that the specified areas were unobservable from the\nair due to overgrowth. Respondent also pointed out that pipe-to-soil surveys and class location\nsurveys had been conducted on the ground during the relevant time period.\n\n\n\nRespondent acknowledged that management of its 16, 000 miles of right-of-way would benefit\nfrom a more systematic application of controls and committed to undertake budgeting and\nplanning for system-wide clearing projects. Respondent further demonstrated that as of\nSeptember 15, 2005, both areas specified in the Notice had been cleared. We acknowledge that\nfollowing the inspection, Respondent initiated efforts to address the deficiencies that resulted in\nthe violation. Respondent, however, has provided no information that would warrant a\nreduction in the penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation, Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$10, 000 for violating ) 192. 705(a).\nFor the reasons discussed above, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $12, 500. Respondent has the ability to pay\nthis penalty without adversely affecting its ability to continue in business.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49\nC. F. R. $ 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-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P. O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $12, 500 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U. S. C. ) 3717, 31 C. F. R. $ 901. 9 and 49 C. F. R. $ 89, 23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United\nStates District Court.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nWith respect to Item 1, the Notice proposed a compliance order for Respondent's failure to take\nprompt remedial action to correct pipe-to-soil readings below the -0. 85v criteria at the Michigan\nHighway M-35 casing crossing in accordance with $ 192. 465(d). Under 49 U. S. C. ) 60118(a),\neach person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility\nis required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The\nDirector, Central Region, PHMSA has indicated that Respondent provided information in its\nResponse demonstrating that it had removed the existing casing and replaced the crossing at\nMichigan Highway M-35 on February 4, 2006. Accordingly, since compliance has been\nachieved with respect to this violation, it is unnecessary to include compliance terms in this\nOrder.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 3, 4b, 5a, and 5b, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did\nnot propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered\nto be warning items. The warnings were for:\n\n\n\n49 C. F. R. $ 192, 605(a) (Notice Item 3) — Respondent's alleged failure to follow its\nmanual of written operating and maintenance procedures. Respondent failed to follow its\nown procedure for locking a relief valve at the Hawthorne ¹I town border station;\n49 C. F. R. ) 192. 705(b) (Notice Item 4b) — Respondent's alleged failure to conduct\ntransmission line patrols within the applicable 4 /i month maximum interval for a Class 3\nlocation. Respondent failed to demonstrate that it had inspected the Glacier Avenue road\ncrossing between November 12, 2003 and May 5, 2004;\n49 C, F. R. $ 192. 739(a) (Notice Item 5a) — Respondent's alleged failure to ensure that\npressure relief devices were set to relieve at the correct pressure. Respondent failed to\nproperly include the vendor's \"build-up\" values in establishing the set point for relief\nvalves at several town border stations; and\n49 C. F. R. $ 192. 201(a) (Notice Item 5b) — Respondent's alleged failure to ensure that a\npressure relief device had enough capacity to ensure that operating pressure could not\nexceed the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) plus 10 percent or the\npressure that produces a hoop stress of 75 percent of SMYS, whichever is lower.\nRespondent failed to update the capacity review sheet for the relief at the L'Anse town\nborder station after the MAOP was increased in 2003 from 60 to 120 psig.\nRespondent presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited warning items. Having considered such information, I find, pursuant to 49\nC. F. R. $ 190. 205, that probable violations of 49 C. F. R. $$ 192. 605(a), 192. 705(b), 192. 739(a),\nand 192. 201(a) have occurred and Respondent is hereby advised to correct such conditions. In\nthe event that PHMSA finds a violation for any of these items in a subsequent inspection,\nRespondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\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\nif Respondent 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 shall be effective upon receipt.\nMAy 12 200B\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nDate Issued","truncated":false,"body_characters":15728}