{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520060014","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":"2006-05-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.321, 192.707.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520060014.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520060014.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520060014","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520060014","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ENSTAR NATURAL GAS CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.321,  192.707. The case was opened on 2006-05-03 and is reported as closed as of 2011-04-26. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520060014_ Final Order_04262011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520060014/520060014_%20Final%20Order_04262011.pdf\n\n520060014_Final Order_04262011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520060014/520060014_Final%20Order_04262011_text.pdf\n\n520060014_operator response to notice_09212007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520060014/520060014_operator%20response%20to%20notice_09212007.pdf\n\n520060014_Final Order_04262011_text.pdf\n\nAPR 26 2011\nMs. Colleen Starring\nPresident\nENSTAR Natural Gas Company\nA Division of SEMCO ENERGY\n3000 Spenard Road\nAnchorage, Alaska 99519-0288\nRE: CPF No. 5-2006-0014\nDear Ms. Starring:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the\nallegations of violation. Therefore, this enforcement action is now closed. Service of the Final\nOrder by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided\nunder 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: Mr. Dave Bredin, Director of Operations, ENSTAR Natural Gas Company\nMr. Travis Renk, Operations Analyst, ENSTAR Natural Gas Company\nMr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0075 9206]\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 )\nENSTAR Natural Gas Company, ) CPF No. 5-2006-0014\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n__________________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn October 10-13, 2005, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of ENSTAR Natural\nGas Company’s (Respondent or ENSTAR) Mat-Su Valley Distribution System near Wasilla,\nAlaska. Respondent operates natural gas transmission and distribution systems throughout\nSouthern Alaska. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director),\nissued to Respondent, by letter dated May 3, 2006, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Respondent committed certain violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated June 1, 2006 (Response). Respondent\ncontested the allegations and requested a hearing. A hearing via telephone conference was held\non August 29, 2007, with an attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. After\nthe hearing, Respondent was given 30 days to provide a post-hearing submission. OPS was\ngiven 20 days and did submit photos of the racks of pipe subject to the allegation in Item 2\nbelow. Respondent submitted additional information on September 21, 2007.\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. § 192.707(a)-(b), which states:\n§ 192.707 Line markers for mains and transmission lines.\n(a) Buried pipelines. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a\nline marker must be placed and maintained as close as practical over each\n\n\n\n2\nburied main and transmission line:\n(1) At each crossing of a public road and railroad; and\n(2) Wherever necessary to identify the location of the transmission line or\nmain to reduce the possibility of damage or interference.\n(b) Exceptions for buried pipelines. Line markers are not required for the\nfollowing pipelines:\n(1) Mains and transmission lines located offshore, or at crossings of or\nunder waterways and other bodies of water.\n(2) Mains in Class 3 or Class 4 locations where a damage prevention\nprogram is in effect under § 192.614.\n(3) Transmission lines in Class 3 or 4 locations until March 20, 1996.\n(4) Transmission lines in Class 3 or 4 locations where placement of a line\nmarker is impractical.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 192.707(a)-(b) by failing to place and maintain\nline markers as close as practical over each buried main line at each crossing of a public road.\nSpecifically, the Notice and Violation Report alleged that Respondent failed to install line\nmarkers on distribution mains in Class 1 and Class 2 areas at public road crossings. During the\ninspection, no line markers were found along Palmer Fishhook Road.\nIn its Response and at the hearing, ENSTAR presented three arguments in contesting the\nallegation of violation. First, Respondent argued that PHMSA’s regulations should not be\nenforced under the facts of this case. 1 Second, Respondent explained that its distribution service\narea is a disconnected mix of Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 areas and proposed a “risk based”\napproach. ENSTAR took issue with applying § 192.707 to distribution mains in Class 1 and\nClass 2 locations where the operator has a damage prevention program in place that covers all of\nits service area equally.\nprinciples underlying PHMSA’s Damage Prevention and Public Awareness regulations.\nRespondent explained that 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(b)(2) exempts distribution mains in Class 3\nlocations from the need for pipeline markers if the operator has a damage prevention program in\nplace.\n2 Third, Respondent contended that § 192.707 is not consistent with the\n1 While ENSTAR agreed that pipeline markers have their place, it suggested “a ‘risk based’ approach to installing\npipeline markers on distribution mains in rural areas is more appropriate.” The company suggested, for example,\nthat pipeline markers be required at road crossings on rural distribution mains only if they were 4” or more in\ndiameter. Respondent reasoned that under such a “risk based” approach, line markers might be more appropriate for\nlarger-diameter mains “that move large volumes of gas, feed hundreds of customers and are more problematic if\ndamaged.”\n2 Respondent advised that its current damage prevention program covers all of its service area equally, not just in\nClass 3 locations. Respondent also asserted that the implementation of its Public Awareness Program (RP 1162)\ncreated an even more heightened awareness of damage prevention in its entire service area than could be achieved\nthrough the use of line markers.\n\n\n\n3\nI have given full consideration to all of the evidence and arguments presented by OPS and\nRespondent. Although the regulations do not currently allow for any risk-based exceptions, this\ncase has raised issues that require more in-depth policy and safety review. Accordingly, having\nconsidered all of the evidence and in the interest of fairness, this allegation of violation is\nwithdrawn. PHMSA shall not be prejudiced, however, by this withdrawal nor precluded from\nalleging future violations of 49 C.F.R. §192.707 against ENSTAR or any other operator.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.321, which states:\n§ 192.321 Installation of plastic pipe.\n(a) . . .\n(g) Uncased plastic pipe may be temporarily installed above ground level\nunder the following conditions:\n(1) The operator must be able to demonstrate that the cumulative\naboveground exposure of the pipe does not exceed the manufacturer’s\nrecommended maximum period of exposure or 2 years, whichever is less.\nThe Notice alleged a violation of § 192.321 based on Respondent’s storage of uncased plastic\npipe for emergency repairs without demonstrating that the cumulative aboveground exposure of\nthe pipe did not exceed the manufacturer’s recommended maximum period of exposure or two\nyears, whichever is less.\nIn Response, ENSTAR argued that the scope of the regulation is limited to the temporary use of\nuncased plastic pipe when installed above ground.\nAfter considering the evidence and the allegations in the Notice, I find that there is insufficient\nnotice of a violation of § 192.321 and no evidence in the record to support a finding of violation.\nAs a matter of legal interpretation, § 192.321 restricts the temporary installation of uncased\nplastic pipe above ground unless it meets certain conditions, including less than two years of UV\nexposure. The Notice did not allege the temporary installation of uncased plastic pipe above\nground. Further, there is no evidence in the record that ENSTAR installed, i.e. used, any of the\nUV-exposed pipe.3 Accordingly, this allegation of violation is withdrawn.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Items 1 and 2 for violations of 49\nC.F.R. Part 192. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of\n3 The issue of whether the pipe in question could have been safely stored outside for more than two years is moot.\nENSTAR contended that PHMSA misinterpreted the code to limit the outdoor storage life of plastic pipe to two\nyears. The agency’s position is based on the regulation’s intent to restrict the use of pipe that has been weakened by\nexposure to UV light and conclusion that this purpose would be thwarted if an operator installed UV weakened pipe\nin any application above ground.\n\n\n\n4\ngas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under chapter 601. Because I ordered that the allegations in Items 1 and 2\nbe withdrawn, the compliance terms proposed for those Items are not included in this order. This\nenforcement action is closed.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n520060014_ Final Order_04262011.pdf\n\nu.s. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Ave., SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nAPR 2~ 2011\nMs. Colleen Starring\nPresident\nENSTAR Natural Gas Company\nA Division of SEMCO ENERGY\n3000 Spenard Road\nAnchorage, Alaska 99519-0288\nRE: CPF No. 5-2006-0014\nDear Ms. Starring:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the\nallegations ofviolation. Therefore, this enforcement action is now closed. Service of the Final\nOrder by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date ofmailing, or as otherwise provided\nunder 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\n~.. J4:0f~JI\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Dave Bredin, Director of Operations, ENSTAR Natural Gas Company\nMr. Travis Renk, Operations Analyst, ENST AR Natural Gas Company\nMr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 00759206]\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 )\nENSTAR Natural Gas Company, ) CPF No. 5-2006-0014\nRespondent. )\n)\n)\n)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn October 10-13,2005, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of ENS TAR Natural\nGas Company's (Respondent or ENSTAR) Mat-Su Valley Distribution System near Wasilla,\nAlaska. Respondent operates natural gas transmission and distribution systems throughout\nSouthern Alaska. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director),\nissued to Respondent, by letter dated May 3, 2006, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Respondent committed certain violations of49 C.F.R. Part 192. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated June 1,2006 (Response). Respondent\ncontested the allegations and requested a hearing. A hearing via telephone conference was held\non August 29, 2007, with an attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. After\nthe hearing, Respondent was given 30 days to provide a post-hearing submission. OPS was\ngiven 20 days and did submit photos ofthe racks ofpipe subject to the allegation in Item 2\nbelow. Respondent submitted additional information on September 21, 2007.\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. § 192.707(a)-(b), which states:\n§ 192.707 Line markers for mains and transmission lines.\n(a) Buried pipelines. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a\nline marker must be placed and maintained as close as practical over each\n\n\n\n2\nburied main and transmission line:\n(1) At each crossing of a public road and railroad; and\n(2) Wherever necessary to identify the location of the transmission line or\nmain to reduce the possibility ofdamage or interference.\n(b) Exceptions for buried pipelines. Line markers are not required for the\nfollowing pipelines:\n(1) Mains and transmission lines located offshore, or at crossings of or\nunder waterways and other bodies ofwater.\n(2) Mains in Class 3 or Class 4 locations where a damage prevention\nprogram is in effect under § 192.614.\n(3) Transmission lines in Class 3 or 4 locations until March 20, 1996.\n(4) Transmission lines in Class 3 or 4 locations where placement of a line\nmarker is impractical.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 192.707(a)-(b) by failing to place and maintain\nline markers as close as practical over each buried main line at each crossing of a public road.\nSpecifically, the Notice and Violation Report alleged that Respondent failed to install line\nmarkers on distribution mains in Class 1 and Class 2 areas at public road crossings. During the\ninspection, no line markers were found along Palmer Fishhook Road.\nIn its Response and at the hearing, ENST AR presented three arguments in contesting the\nallegation ofviolation. First, Respondent argued that PHMSA's regulations should not be\nenforced under the facts ofthis case. 1 Second, Respondent explained that its distribution service\narea is a disconnected mix of Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 areas and proposed a \"risk based\"\napproach. ENST AR took issue with applying § 192.707 to distribution mains in Class 1 and\nClass 2 locations where the operator has a damage prevention program in place that covers all of\nits service area equally. 2 Third, Respondent contended that § 192.707 is not consistent with the\nprinciples underlying PHMSA's Damage Prevention and Public Awareness regulations.\nRespondent explained that 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(b)(2) exempts distribution mains in Class 3\nlocations from the need for pipeline markers if the operator has a damage prevention program in\nplace.\n)While ENSTAR agreed that pipeline markers have their place, it suggested \"a 'risk based' approach to installing\npipeline markers on distribution mains in rural areas is more appropriate.\" The company suggested, for example,\nthat pipeline markers be required at road crossings on rural distribution mains only ifthey were 4\" or more in\ndiameter. Respondent reasoned that under such a \"risk based\" approach, line markers might be more appropriate for\nlarger-diameter mains ''that move large volumes ofgas, feed hundreds ofcustomers and are more problematic if\ndamaged.\"\n2 Respondent advised that its current damage prevention program covers all of its service area equally, not just in\nClass 3 locations. Respondent also asserted that the implementation of its Public Awareness Program (RP 1162)\ncreated an even more heightened awareness ofdamage prevention in its entire service area than could be achieved\nthrough the use of line markers.\n\n\n\n3\nI have given full consideration to all ofthe evidence and arguments presented by OPS and\nRespondent. Although the regulations do not currently allow for any risk-based exceptions, this\ncase has raised issues that require more in-depth policy and safety review. Accordingly, having\nconsidered all of the evidence and in the interest offaimess, this allegation ofviolation is\nwithdrawn. PHMSA shall not be prejudiced, however, by this withdrawal nor precluded from\nalleging future violations of 49 C.F.R. §192.707 against ENSTAR or any other operator.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.321, which states:\n§ 192.321 Installation of plastic pipe.\n(a) ...\n(g) Uncased plastic pipe may be temporarily installed above ground level\nunder the following conditions:\n(1) The operator must be able to demonstrate that the cumulative\naboveground exposure of the pipe does not exceed the manufacturer's\nrecommended maximum period ofexposure or 2 years, whichever is less.\nThe Notice alleged a violation of § 192.321 based on Respondent's storage ofuncased plastic\npipe for emergency repairs without demonstrating that the cumulative aboveground exposure of\nthe pipe did not exceed the manufacturer's recommended maximum period of exposure or two\nyears, whichever is less.\nIn Response, ENST AR argued that the scope ofthe regulation is limited to the temporary use of\nuncased plastic pipe when installed above ground.\nAfter considering the evidence and the allegations in the Notice, I find that there is insufficient\nnotice ofa violation of § 192.321 and no evidence in the record to support a finding ofviolation.\nAs a matter oflegal interpretation, § 192.321 restricts the temporary installation ofuncased\nplastic pipe above ground unless it meets certain conditions, including less than two years ofUV\nexposure. The Notice did not allege the temporary installation ofuncased plastic pipe above\nground. Further, there is no evidence in the record that ENSTAR installed, i.e. used, any ofthe\nUV-exposed pipe.3 Accordingly, this allegation of violation is withdrawn.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Items 1 and 2 for violations of49\nC.F.R. Part 192. Under 49 U.S.c. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of\n3 The issue ofwhether the pipe in question could have been safely stored outside for more than two years is moot.\nENST AR contended that PHMSA ntisinterpreted the code to limit the outdoor storage life ofplastic pipe to two\nyears. The agency's position is based on the regulation'S intent to restrict the use of pipe that has been weakened by\nexposure to UV light and conclusion that this purpose would be thwarted if an operator installed UV weakened pipe\nin any application above ground.\n\n\n\n4\ngas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under chapter 60 I. Because I ordered that the allegations in Items 1 and 2\nbe withdrawn, the compliance terms proposed for those Items are not included in this order. This\nenforcement action is closed.\nAPR II :lDli\nDate Issued","truncated":false,"body_characters":19445}