{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520040006","title":"ENSTAR NATURAL GAS CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2004-02-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.199(h), 192.229, 192.233, 192.283(b)(7), 192.357(a), 192.479(a), 192.723(b)(1), 192.727(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520040006.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520040006.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520040006","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520040006","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ENSTAR NATURAL GAS CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.199(h),  192.229,  192.233,  192.283(b)(7),  192.357(a),  192.479(a),  192.723(b)(1),  192.727(d). The case was opened on 2004-02-23 and is reported as closed as of 2006-06-15. Proposed civil penalty: $14,000. Assessed civil penalty: $8,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520040006_Final Order_06022006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520040006/520040006_Final%20Order_06022006.pdf\n\n520040006_final order_06022006_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520040006/520040006_final%20order_06022006_text.pdf\n\n520040006_final order_06022006_text.pdf\n\nU. S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline ana\nHcuanloMs Malerials Safety\nAamlnlstratlon\n400 Seventh Street, S. W.\nWeshlngton, D. C. 20590\nJUN -2 m6\nMr. Anthony Izzo, General Manager\nEnstar Natural Gas Company\nP. O. Box 190288\n401 East International Airport Road\nAnchorage, AK 99519-0288\nRE: CPF No. 5-2004-0006\nDear Mr. Izzo,\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in\nthe above-referenced case. It withdraws one of the allegations of violation, makes findings of\nviolation, acknowledges receipt of partial penalty payment and assesses a total civil penalty of\n$8, 000 of which $3, 000 has already been paid by Respondent. The Final Order also finds that\nyou have completed the actions specified in the Notice required to comply with the pipeline\nsafety regulations, and that you have addressed the inadequacies in your procedures that were\ncited in the Notice of Amendment. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order.\nWhen the civil penalty is paid this enforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of the\nFinal Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C. F. R. $190. 5.\nSincerely,\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Chris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region, OPS\nCertified Mail Return-Recei t Re uested\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\nEnstar Natural Gas Company\nRespondent.\nCPF No. 5-2004-0006\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween July 2 and 8, 2003, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. $60117, representatives of the Western\nRegion, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted onsite pipeline safety inspections of\nRespondent's natural gas distribution facilities, manuals and records in Anchorage, Alaska As a\nresult of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated\nFebruary 23, 2004, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, Proposed\nCompliance Order, and Notice of Amendment (Notice).\nIn accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent committed\nviolations of 49 C. F. R. part 192, proposed assessing a civil penalty of $14, 000 for the alleged\nviolations, and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged\nviolations. The Notice also proposed, in accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 237, that Respondent\namend its Operating and Maintenance Procedures.\nRespondent replied to the Notice by letter dated March 23, 2004 (Response). Respondent did\nnot contest Items 1, 6 and 7 in the Notice. Respondent provided information regarding the\ncorrective actions it has taken. Respondent performed a wire transfer in the amount of the\nproposed civil penalties ($3, 000) for these Items. Respondent contested Items 5 and 8 in the\nNotice, offered information in explanation of the allegations, provided information concerning\nthe corrective actions it has taken, and proposed that the civil penalties be eliminated.\nRespondent provided additional information concerning compliance and amendment of its\nprocedures by letter dated April, 20 2004. Respondent formally requested a hearing by letter\ndated May 14, 2004. The hearing was held on May 4, 2005, at the OPS, Western Region Alaska\nDistrict office in Anchorage, Alaska. After the hearing, Respondent submitted supporting\ndocuments presented at the hearing and a summary of comments on May 18, 2005.\n\n\n\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nUncontested\nRespondent did not contest the violations alleged in Notice Items 1, 6, and 7. Accordingly, I find\nthat Respondent violated the following sections of 49 C. F. R. Part 192, as more fully described in\nthe notice.\n1) 49 C. F. R. $192. 199(h) — failing to secure the regulator station at the Fort\nRichardson Laundry facility from unauthorized operation.\n6) 49 C. F. R. $192. 479(a) — failing to take measures to prevent atmospheric\ncorrosion on susceptible above ground equipment in the regulator/relief\nbuilding at the East Anchorage regulator station and on the meter sets at the\nManoogs Isle Trailer Park and the Diamond Trailer Park in Anchorage.\n7) 49 C. F. R. $192. 723 — failing at the time of inspection, to provide leak survey\nrecords demonstrating that a leak survey had been conducted in the Anchorage\nbusiness district, grid 4 A1931BD, for the 2002 calendar year.\nContested\nItem 5 alleged Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 357(a), which requires Respondent to install\ncustomer meters and regulators so as to minimize anticipated stresses upon the connecting piping\nand the meter or regulator. The Notice alleged that Respondent did not take steps to minimize\nanticipated stresses when installing customer meter sets at some trailer parks. OPS personnel\nobserved that meter sets at the Manoogs Isle and Diamond Trailer Parks in Anchorage were only\nsupported by the riser pipe and that often, riser pipes were bent. Respondent reported that this\ncondition was common in older trailer parks and that in the Manoogs Isle and Diamond parks,\nthere were in excess of 1, 000 unsupported meter sets.\nIn Respondent's March 23, 2004 response, it agreed that these meter sets could be better\nsupported. Respondent further explained that it had not had any unusual problems with\nregulators and meters failing as a result of the established method of installation. Respondent\nnoted that some of the risers have existed for up to 40 years and that OPS had inspected Enstar's\ndistribution system before and not objected to these conditions. After the July, 2003 OPS\ninspection, Respondent initiated a program to refurbish and support the meter sets. Respondent's\npost-hearing comments, submitted on May 18, 2005, document the straightening, support and\npainting of 1144 trailer park meter sets. Respondent repaired the remaining 862 meter sets\nduring the summer of 2005.\nIn Respondent's post-hearing comments, it restated its position that its installation of meters\nsupported only by a riser pipe addresses all anticipated stresses as required by g 192. 357(a).\nHowever, Respondent also noted its agreement with the OPS inspector that\n\n\n\nthe trailer court meter sets needed to be straightened, painted and their appearance generally\nliIlproved.\nSection 192. 357(a) requires that meters are adequately supported at all times. Inadequately\nsupported meters are more susceptible to damage and present an increased threat to public safety,\nHere, many of the riser pipes supporting Respondents meter sets were bent. This condition\nindicates a lack of proper support and is the type of unsafe situation that the regulation was\ndesigned to avoid. Respondent's assertion that it has never had a meter fail as a result of\nimproper support does not negate this finding. Additionally, PHMSA is not precluded from\ntaking enforcement action for a violation that was not identified during previous inspections.\nTherefore, I find that Respondent committed violation of $192. 357(a).\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION\nNotice Item 8 alleged that Respondent had violated 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 727(d), by failing to\nproperly abandon its customer meter sets. When taking certain customer meter sets out of\nservice, Respondent installed a locking device on the shut-off valve as the lone method of\ncompliance with $192. 727. In the Notice, OPS asserted that when a customer service meter is\nphysically removed, in addition to locking the device, both ends of the piping must be sealed. In\nits response, Respondent asserted, that only one of those abandonment methods need be used in\norder to comply with the $192. 727. I agree with Respondent. As a result, I am withdrawing this\nallegation of violation.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U. S. C. $60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100, 000 per violation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1, 000, 000 for any\nrelated series of violations.\n49 U. S. C. f 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.\nItem 1 proposed a civil penalty of $1, 000 for violation of $192. 199(h). Respondent did not\ncontest this item and paid the civil penalty in response to the Notice. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$1, 000, already paid by Respondent.\n' Respondeat's letter, May 18, 2005, page 1.\n\n\n\nItem 5 proposed a civil penalty of $10, 000 for violation of 49 C. F. R. $192. 357(a), for not taking\nsteps to minimize stresses on customer meter connecting piping. The proper support of customer\nmeters and connecting piping is an important public safety requirement. Respondent should\nhave realized that bent riser pipes on many of its customer meter sets indicated insufficient\nsupport. This condition threatened public safety and is the type of situation $192. 357(a) was\ndesigned to prevent.\nRespondent maintained that its program to fully support all meters in question demonstrated\ngood faith in achieving compliance. Subsequent compliance does not negate past violation.\nNonetheless, the circumstances surrounding the violation allow for mitigation of the proposed\ncivil penalty. Part 192. 357(a) is broadly worded and demands only \"support\" of meters, without\nspecifying the nature of that support. After 40 years of installing meters only supported by the\nriser pipe, it is possible that Respondent was acting on a good faith belief that it had satisfied the\nregulatory requirements. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a reduced total civil penalty of $5, 000.\nItem 6 proposed a civil penalty of $1, 000 for violation of $192. 479(a). Respondent did not\ncontest this item and paid the civil penalty in response to the Notice. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$1, 000, already paid by respondent.\nItem 7 proposed a civil penalty of $1, 000 for violation of $192. 723. Respondent did not contest\nthis item and paid the civil penalty in response to the Notice. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $1, 000,\nalready paid by respondent.\nItem 8 proposed a civil penalty of $1, 000. Since this item is withdrawn, the proposed civil\npenalty is not assessed.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a total civil penalty of $8, 000 of which $3, 000 has already been paid by Respondent.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Payment may be made by\nsending a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number for this case) payable to\n\"U. S. Department of Transportation\" to the Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney\nAeronautical Center, Financial Operations Division (AMZ-300), P. O. Box 25082, Oklahoma\nCity, OK 73125. '\nFederal regulations (49 C. F, R. $ 89. 21(b)(3)) also permit this payment to be made by wire\ntnmsfer, through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the\nU. S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire\ntransfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-300), Federal Aviation\nAdministration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P. O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK\n73125; (405) 954-8893,\n\n\n\nFailure to pay the $5, 000 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'/o) 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\nUnder 49 C. F. R. f 190. 215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this\nFinal Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However if Respondent submits\npayment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the\nright to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are\neffective on receipt.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Notice items 1, 5, 6 and 7. Under 49\nU. S. C. $ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601. The Regional Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following\nactions specified in the proposed Compliance Order to address the cited violations:\nFor Item 1 (violation of 49 C. F. R. $192. 199), Respondent has secured the regulator station to\nprotect it &om unauthorized operation\nFor Item 5 (violation of 49 C. F. R. $192. 357), Respondent has provided adequate meter support\nto the meter sets to prevent stresses on the connecting piping.\nFor Item 6 (violation of 49 C. F. R. $192. 479), Respondent has coated exposed bolts within the\nregulator relief building and numerous meter sets with a material suitable for the prevention of\natmospheric corrosion.\nFor Item 7 (violation of 49 C. F. R. $192. 723), Respondent has provided leak survey reports for\n2003 and 2004 that confirm completion of the surveys.\nThese actions comply with the requirements in Items 1, 5, 6 and 7 of this Order. Accordingly,\nsince compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations, compliance terms are not\nincluded in this Order.\nAMENDMENT OF PROC DURES\nNotice Items 2, 3, and 4 alleged that certain portions of Respondent's Operating Procedures were\ninadequate and proposed to require amendment of Respondent's procedures. In its response,\nRespondent submitted copies of its amended procedures,\n\n\n\nwhich the Director, Western Region, OPS reviewed. Accordingly, based on the results of this\nreview, I find that Respondent's original procedures as described in the Notice were inadequate\nto ensure safe operation of its pipeline system, but that Respondent has corrected the identified\ninadequacies. No need exists to issue an order directing amendment.\nJUN -2 m6\nS\nAs o\nfor\nL Gerard\niate Administrator\nipeline Safety\nDate Issued","truncated":false,"body_characters":15916}