{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520050002","title":"BLACK HILLS NORTHWEST WYOMING GAS UTILITY COMPANY, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2005-02-14","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 191.15(a), 192.14(b), 192.227(b), 192.241(c), 192.457(a), 192.461(b), 192.463(a), 192.465(c), 192.465(d), 192.465(e), 192.469, 192.491(a), 192.491(c), 192.503(d), 192.605(b)(3), 192.605(b)(5), 192.605(c)(5), 192.613(b), 192.614(c)(3), 192.615, 192.615(a)(6), 192.619(c), 192.627, 192.703(c), 192.709(c), 192.711(a)(2), 192.715, 192.715(c), 192.717(b)(3), 192.719(b), 192.739, 192.739(b), 192.739(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520050002.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520050002.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520050002","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520050002","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BLACK HILLS NORTHWEST WYOMING GAS UTILITY COMPANY, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 191.15(a),  192,  192.14(b),  192.227(b),  192.241(c),  192.457(a),  192.461(b),  192.463(a),  192.465(c),  192.465(d),  192.465(e),  192.469,  192.491(a),  192.491(c),  192.503(d),  192.605(b)(3),  192.605(b)(5),  192.605(c)(5),  192.613(b),  192.614(c)(3),  192.615,  192.615(a)(6),  192.619(c),  192.627,  192.703(c),  192.709(c),  192.711(a)(2),  192.715,  192.715(c),  192.717(b)(3),  192.719(b),  192.739,  192.739(b),  192.739(d). The case was opened on 2005-02-14 and is reported as closed as of 2009-07-08. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520050002_FinalOrder_07082009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520050002/520050002_FinalOrder_07082009.pdf\n\n520050002_FinalOrder_07082009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520050002/520050002_FinalOrder_07082009_text.pdf\n\n520050002_FinalOrder_07082009_text.pdf\n\nJUL 08 2009\nMr. Kevin J. Degenstein\nPresident and Chief Operating Officer\nEnergy West Development, Inc.\n1 First Avenue South\nP.O. Box 2229\nGreat Falls, MT 59401\nRe: CPF No. 5-2005-0002\nDear Mr. Degenstein:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation\nand finds that you have completed the actions specified in the Notice that were required to bring\nEnergy West into compliance with the pipeline safety regulations. The Final Order also finds\nthat you have addressed the inadequacies in your procedures that were cited in the Notice of\nAmendment. Therefore, this case is now closed. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes\nservice under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Chris Hoidal, Director, OPS Western Region\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0046 9723]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n______________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nEnergy West Development, Inc., ) CPF No. 5-2005-0002\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n______________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nIn October and November 2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Energy West\nDevelopment, Inc. (Energy West or Respondent), regarding the company’s Shoshone Pipeline in\nMontana and Wyoming. Respondent is a subsidiary of Energy West, Inc., a natural gas utility\ncompany with operations in Montana, Wyoming, North Carolina, and Maine.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated February 14, 2005, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed\nCompliance Order, and Notice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Energy West had committed certain violations of 49\nC.F.R. Part 192, and 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 written procedures for operations, maintenance and emergencies.\nEnergy West responded to the Notice by letters dated March 10, 2005, April 15, 2005, and\nMay 31, 2007 (collectively, Response). The company did not contest the allegations of violation\nbut provided information concerning the corrective actions it had taken to correct said violations\nand submitted its revised procedures. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has\nwaived its right to one. The following order discusses each of the 16 Items raised in the Notice\nand is divided into four sections: Findings of Violations; Compliance Order; Amendment of\nProcedures; and Warning Item.\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.14, which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.14 Conversion to service subject to this part.\n(a) A steel pipeline previously used in service not subject to this part\nqualifies for use under this part if the operator prepares and follows a written\nprocedure to carry out the following requirements….\n(4) The pipeline must be tested in accordance with subpart J of this part to\nsubstantiate the maximum allowable operating pressure permitted by subpart L of\nthis part.\n(b) Each operator must keep for the life of the pipeline a record of the\ninvestigations, tests, repairs, replacements, and alterations made under the\nrequirements of paragraph (a) of this section.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 192.14 because it did not prepare and follow a\nwritten procedure for testing the pipeline in accordance with subpart J of Part 192 to substantiate\nits maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP). Since the Shoshone Pipeline was\npreviously used in service but not subject to 49 C.F.R. Part 192, this testing was required.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that there was inadequate documentation for the conversion to\nservice of the Shoshone Pipeline showing how the line’s MAOP was calculated. In addition, the\nNotice alleged that the company’s hydrostatic test records used in such determination lacked any\nconsideration of the pipeline’s profile or the location/elevation of deadweight testers.\nUnder § 192.14(a)(4), operators are required to test converted pipelines in accordance with the\nrequirements of subpart J (Test Requirements) in order to establish that the MAOP meets the\n2001 and has transported natural gas since 2003. During the inspection, Respondent was unable\nto demonstrate that it had tested the line in accordance with subpart J to substantiate an MAOP\nof 791 psig. In addition, Energy West needed to utilize hydrostatic testing data on elevation and\nthe location of the deadweight testers in order to properly calculate the lowest test pressure of the\nline, a key component in computing MAOP under § 192.619. Without this vital information,\nRespondent was unable to substantiate the current MAOP of the line. As noted above,\nRespondent did not contest this allegation and therefore, upon consideration of all of the\nevidence, I find that Energy West violated § 192.14(a)(4), by failing to prepare and follow a\nwritten procedure for testing the Shoshone Pipeline in accordance with subpart J of Part 192 to\nstandards of Part 192.1 The Shoshone Pipeline was converted from crude oil to gas service in\nsubstantiate the MAOP of the line.\n1 See 49 C.F.R. § 192.619.\n\n\n\n3\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.195(a) and 192.739(a),\nwhich state:\n§ 192.195 Protection against accidental overpressuring.\n(a) General requirements. Except as provided in §192.197, each\npipeline that is connected to a gas source so that the maximum allowable\noperating pressure could be exceeded as the result of pressure control failure or\nof some other type of failure, must have pressure relieving or pressure limiting\ndevices that meet the requirements of §§192.199 and 192.201….\n§ 192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and testing.2\n(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs),\nand pressure regulating station and its equipment must be subjected at intervals\nnot exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to inspections\nand tests to determine that it is—\n(1) In good mechanical condition;\n(2) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation\nfor the service in which it is employed;\n(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, set to control\nor relieve at the correct pressure consistent with the pressure limits of\n§192.201(a); and\n(4) Properly installed and protected from dirt, liquids, or other\nconditions that might prevent proper operation….\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent did not have any overpressure protection devices on the\nShoshone Pipeline. In addition, it alleged that even if such devices existed, the company did not\nhave any records that such devices or equipment had been properly tested at the required\nintervals.\nDuring the inspection, Respondent’s personnel admitted that Energy West had not installed\npressure and safeguard against overpressure incidents. Under the pipeline safety regulations,\neach operator is responsible for ensuring that its pipeline is protected from pressure control\ndevices by recording the type, location, and inspection date for each device.\noverpressure devices on this line.3 Instead, the company relied on its supplier to regulate the\nfailures and must therefore either maintain its own overpressure devices or monitor its supplier’s\n2 This regulation was amended by direct final rule effective October 8, 2004, which preceded the inspection date by\nsix days. See, Pipeline Safety: Pressure Limiting and Regulation Stations, 69 Fed. Reg. 27861 (May 17, 2004)\n(codified at 49 C.F.R. § 192.739) and 69 Fed. Reg. 54248 (September 8, 2004). Although the Notice erroneously\ncited the text of the former § 192.739, Respondent is aware of the material facts that formed the basis of this\nallegation of violation and the associated terms of the proposed compliance order. Further, the amended regulation\ndid not affect Respondent’s obligation to inspect pressure limiting devices at the required intervals.\n3 Violation Report, at 4.\n\n\n\n4\nAlthough Respondent in this case chose to rely on its supplier, it could not produce records\ndemonstrating that the overpressure devices existed or that they were tested at least once each\ncalendar year at intervals not exceeding 15 months. As noted above, Energy West did not\ncontest this violation. Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that Energy\nWest violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.195 and 192.739 by failing to have overpressure protection\ndevices on its pipeline and to test such devices each calendar year at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.241, which states:\n§ 192.241 Inspection and test of welds.4\n(a) Visual inspection of welding must be conducted by an individual\nqualified by appropriate training and experience to ensure that:\n(1) The welding is performed in accordance with the welding\nprocedure; and\n(2) The weld is acceptable under paragraph (c) of this section.\n(b) The welds on a pipeline to be operated at a pressure that produces a\nhoop stress of 20 percent or more of SMYS5\nmust be nondestructively tested in\naccordance with §192.243, except that welds that are visually inspected and\napproved by a qualified welding inspector need not be nondestructively tested\nif:\n(1) The pipe has a nominal diameter of less than 6 inches (152\nmillimeters); or\n(2) The pipeline is to be operated at a pressure that produces a hoop\nstress of less than 40 percent of SMYS and the welds are so limited in number\nthat nondestructive testing is impractical.\n(c) The acceptability of a weld that is nondestructively tested or visually\ninspected is determined according to the standards in Section 9 of API Standard\n1104 (incorporated by reference, see §192.7). However, if a girth weld is\nunacceptable under those standards for a reason other than a crack, and if\nAppendix A to API 1104 applies to the weld, the acceptability of the weld may\nbe further determined under that appendix.\nThe Notice alleged that Energy West violated § 192.241 by failing to perform visual inspections\nand non-destructive testing of certain tie-in welds used for portions of the Shoshone Pipeline that\nwere replaced after the conversion to service. Under the pipeline safety regulations, an operator\n4 This regulation was amended by final rule effective July 14, 2004. Therefore, at the time of the October and\nNovember 2004 inspections, the regulation quoted here was in effect. See, Pipeline Safety: Periodic Updates to\nPipeline Safety Regulations (2001), 69 Fed. Reg. 32886 (June 14, 2004) (codified at 49 C.F.R. § 192.241). The\nNotice erroneously cited the text of the former § 192.241, but the error was not raised by Respondent and, in any\nevent, is harmless. The new requirements did not affect Respondent’s obligation to visually inspect welding\nprojects or conduct nondestructive testing of welds.\n5 Specified minimum yield strength. For definition, see 49 C.F.R. § 192.3.\n\n\n\n5\nmust ensure that all welds are visually inspected. Respondent’s personnel stated during the\ninspection that the welder himself visually inspected the pipeline but Energy West could not\nproduce any records documenting that this inspection took place.6\nFurther, under § 192.241(b), Respondent was required to nondestructively test such welds since\nthe Shoshone Pipeline had a diameter greater than six inches and a hoop stress equal to 40% of\nSMYS. Respondent could not produce any records demonstrating that it had conducted\nnondestructive testing of these welds. As noted above, Energy West did not contest this\nallegation. Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that Energy West\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 192.241 by failing to perform either visual inspections or nondestructive\ntesting of certain repair welds on the Shoshone Pipeline.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.463(a) and 192.465(d),\nwhich state:\n§ 192.463 External corrosion control: Cathodic protection.\n(a) Each cathodic protection system required by this subpart must\nprovide a level of cathodic protection that complies with one or more of the\napplicable criteria contained in appendix D of this part. If none of these criteria\nis applicable, the cathodic protection system must provide a level of cathodic\nprotection at least equal to that provided by compliance with one or more of\nthese criteria….\n§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) ....\n(d) Each operator shall take prompt remedial action to correct any\ndeficiencies indicated by the monitoring.\nThe Notice alleged that Energy West violated § 192.463 by failing to provide a level of cathodic\nprotection on the Shoshone pipeline that complied with one or more of the applicable criteria\ncontained in Appendix D of subpart I (Requirements for Corrosion Control). Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that the Shoshone Pipeline had experienced low cathodic protection readings\nsince December 2002 but that the company had failed to take prompt remedial action to correct\nsuch deficiencies. As noted above, Respondent did not contest this allegation. Accordingly,\nupon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.463\nand 192.465 by failing to provide an adequate level of cathodic protection of its Shoshone\nPipeline since December 2002.\n6 Violation Report, at 5.\n\n\n\n6\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.473 and 192.491(c),\nwhich state:\n§ 192.473 External corrosion control: Interference currents.\n(a) Each operator whose pipeline system is subjected to stray currents\nshall have in effect a continuing program to minimize the detrimental effects of\nsuch currents.\n(b) Each impressed current type cathodic protection system or galvanic\nanode system must be designed and installed so as to minimize any adverse\neffects on existing adjacent underground metallic structures.\n§ 192.491 Corrosion control records.\n(a) ….\n(c) Each operator shall maintain a record of each test, survey, or\ninspection required by this subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the\nadequacy of corrosion control measures or that a corrosive condition does not\nexist. These records must be retained for at least 5 years, except that records\nrelated to §§ 192.465(a) and (e) and 192.475(b) must be retained for as long as\nthe pipeline remains in service.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated §§ 192.473 and 192.491(c) by failing to have a\ncontinuing program in effect for a pipeline subjected to stray currents in order to minimize the\ndetrimental effects of such currents. Respondent was not only required to test for stray currents\nbut was also obligated to maintain records of these inspections for at least five years. The Notice\nalleged that Energy West was unable to produce records showing that it had actually conducted\nan interference study with Rocky Mountain Pipeline. Respondent contended at the time of the\ninspection that such a study was conducted in 2003 or 2004. As noted above, Energy West did\nnot contest this allegation. Accordingly, upon consideration of all of the evidence, I find that\nEnergy West violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.473 and 192.491 by failing to show that it had in effect a\ncontinuing program to minimize stray currents and to keep records of said interference study for\na period of five years.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to the violations listed in Items 2, 3, 4, 5,\n6. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who\nowns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards\nestablished under chapter 601. The Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the\n\n\n\n7\nfollowing actions specified in the proposed compliance order:\n1. In response to Item 2, Energy West analyzed and documented the hydrostatic test data\nfor its Shoshone Pipeline and accounted for elevation differences to determine its\nMAOP.\n2. In response to Item 3, Respondent installed a pressure relief valve on the line that\nfeeds the Shoshone Pipeline. This pressure relief valve limits pressure to 690 psig\nwhich is below the MAOP of 960 psig.\n3. In response to Item 4, Respondent excavated all tie-in welds made during the\nconversion to service for the Shoshone Pipeline and nondestructively tested each\nweld using radiography. All welds were found acceptable.\n4. In response to Item 5, Respondent completed an instant off/native CP monitoring\nsurvey and found that all test stations met criteria listed in National Association of\nCorrosion Engineers RPO169.\n5. In response to Item 6, Respondent has completed additional interference studies with\nRocky Mountain Pipeline Company, as well as similar studies at other foreign\ncrossings. The studies revealed no interference with the Rocky Mountain Pipeline;\nhowever, interference with other pipelines was discovered. Energy West has\ninformed the Director of actions it is taking to mitigate interference concerns.\nAccordingly, since compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations, the\ncompliance terms are not included in this Order.\nAMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES\nItems 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Notice alleged certain inadequacies in\nRespondent’s Operating and Maintenance Manual and proposed to require amendment of Energy\nWest’s procedures to comply with the requirements of Part 192. In its Response, the company\nsubmitted copies of its amended procedures, which the Director has reviewed. Accordingly,\nbased on the results of this review, I find that Respondent’s original procedures as described in\nthe Notice were inadequate under 49 C.F.R. § 190.237 to ensure safe operation of its pipeline\nsystem, but that Respondent has corrected the identified inadequacies. Accordingly, it is\nunnecessary to issue an Order Directing Amendment.\n\n\n\n8\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 16, the Notice alleged a probable violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.614(c)(3) for\nRespondent’s failure to include in its damage prevention program a procedure for recording one-\ncall notices of planned excavation activities. The Notice did not propose a civil penalty or\ncompliance order for this item so it is considered a warning item. As noted above, Energy West\ndid not contest this allegation. Accordingly, having considered all of the evidence in the record,\nI find, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 192.205, that a probable violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.614(c)(3)\nhas occurred and Respondent is hereby advised to correct such condition. In the event that OPS\nfinds a violation for this item in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future\nenforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 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 terms of the order, including\nany required corrective action and amendment of procedures, shall remain in full force and effect\nunless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this\nFinal Order shall be effective upon receipt.\n___________________________ ___________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":21040}