# ENSTAR NATURAL GAS CO — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

520060014_ Final Order_04262011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520060014/520060014_%20Final%20Order_04262011.pdf

520060014_Final Order_04262011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520060014/520060014_Final%20Order_04262011_text.pdf

520060014_operator response to notice_09212007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520060014/520060014_operator%20response%20to%20notice_09212007.pdf

520060014_Final Order_04262011_text.pdf

APR 26 2011
Ms. Colleen Starring
President
ENSTAR Natural Gas Company
A Division of SEMCO ENERGY
3000 Spenard Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0288
RE: CPF No. 5-2006-0014
Dear Ms. Starring:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the
allegations of violation. Therefore, this enforcement action is now closed. Service of the Final
Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided
under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Dave Bredin, Director of Operations, ENSTAR Natural Gas Company
Mr. Travis Renk, Operations Analyst, ENSTAR Natural Gas Company
Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0075 9206]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
__________________________________________
In the Matter of )
ENSTAR Natural Gas Company, ) CPF No. 5-2006-0014
)
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On October 10-13, 2005, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of ENSTAR Natural
Gas Company’s (Respondent or ENSTAR) Mat-Su Valley Distribution System near Wasilla,
Alaska. Respondent operates natural gas transmission and distribution systems throughout
Southern Alaska. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director),
issued to Respondent, by letter dated May 3, 2006, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed
Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed
finding that Respondent committed certain violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192. The Notice also
proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated June 1, 2006 (Response). Respondent
contested the allegations and requested a hearing. A hearing via telephone conference was held
on August 29, 2007, with an attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. After
the hearing, Respondent was given 30 days to provide a post-hearing submission. OPS was
given 20 days and did submit photos of the racks of pipe subject to the allegation in Item 2
below. Respondent submitted additional information on September 21, 2007.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(a)-(b), which states:
§ 192.707 Line markers for mains and transmission lines.
(a) Buried pipelines. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a
line marker must be placed and maintained as close as practical over each



2
buried main and transmission line:
(1) At each crossing of a public road and railroad; and
(2) Wherever necessary to identify the location of the transmission line or
main to reduce the possibility of damage or interference.
(b) Exceptions for buried pipelines. Line markers are not required for the
following pipelines:
(1) Mains and transmission lines located offshore, or at crossings of or
under waterways and other bodies of water.
(2) Mains in Class 3 or Class 4 locations where a damage prevention
program is in effect under § 192.614.
(3) Transmission lines in Class 3 or 4 locations until March 20, 1996.
(4) Transmission lines in Class 3 or 4 locations where placement of a line
marker is impractical.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 192.707(a)-(b) by failing to place and maintain
line markers as close as practical over each buried main line at each crossing of a public road.
Specifically, the Notice and Violation Report alleged that Respondent failed to install line
markers on distribution mains in Class 1 and Class 2 areas at public road crossings. During the
inspection, no line markers were found along Palmer Fishhook Road.
In its Response and at the hearing, ENSTAR presented three arguments in contesting the
allegation of violation. First, Respondent argued that PHMSA’s regulations should not be
enforced under the facts of this case. 1 Second, Respondent explained that its distribution service
area is a disconnected mix of Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 areas and proposed a “risk based”
approach. ENSTAR took issue with applying § 192.707 to distribution mains in Class 1 and
Class 2 locations where the operator has a damage prevention program in place that covers all of
its service area equally.
principles underlying PHMSA’s Damage Prevention and Public Awareness regulations.
Respondent explained that 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(b)(2) exempts distribution mains in Class 3
locations from the need for pipeline markers if the operator has a damage prevention program in
place.
2 Third, Respondent contended that § 192.707 is not consistent with the
1 While ENSTAR agreed that pipeline markers have their place, it suggested “a ‘risk based’ approach to installing
pipeline markers on distribution mains in rural areas is more appropriate.” The company suggested, for example,
that pipeline markers be required at road crossings on rural distribution mains only if they were 4” or more in
diameter. Respondent reasoned that under such a “risk based” approach, line markers might be more appropriate for
larger-diameter mains “that move large volumes of gas, feed hundreds of customers and are more problematic if
damaged.”
2 Respondent advised that its current damage prevention program covers all of its service area equally, not just in
Class 3 locations. Respondent also asserted that the implementation of its Public Awareness Program (RP 1162)
created an even more heightened awareness of damage prevention in its entire service area than could be achieved
through the use of line markers.



3
I have given full consideration to all of the evidence and arguments presented by OPS and
Respondent. Although the regulations do not currently allow for any risk-based exceptions, this
case has raised issues that require more in-depth policy and safety review. Accordingly, having
considered all of the evidence and in the interest of fairness, this allegation of violation is
withdrawn. PHMSA shall not be prejudiced, however, by this withdrawal nor precluded from
alleging future violations of 49 C.F.R. §192.707 against ENSTAR or any other operator.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.321, which states:
§ 192.321 Installation of plastic pipe.
(a) . . .
(g) Uncased plastic pipe may be temporarily installed above ground level
under the following conditions:
(1) The operator must be able to demonstrate that the cumulative
aboveground exposure of the pipe does not exceed the manufacturer’s
recommended maximum period of exposure or 2 years, whichever is less.
The Notice alleged a violation of § 192.321 based on Respondent’s storage of uncased plastic
pipe for emergency repairs without demonstrating that the cumulative aboveground exposure of
the pipe did not exceed the manufacturer’s recommended maximum period of exposure or two
years, whichever is less.
In Response, ENSTAR argued that the scope of the regulation is limited to the temporary use of
uncased plastic pipe when installed above ground.
After considering the evidence and the allegations in the Notice, I find that there is insufficient
notice of a violation of § 192.321 and no evidence in the record to support a finding of violation.
As a matter of legal interpretation, § 192.321 restricts the temporary installation of uncased
plastic pipe above ground unless it meets certain conditions, including less than two years of UV
exposure. The Notice did not allege the temporary installation of uncased plastic pipe above
ground. Further, there is no evidence in the record that ENSTAR installed, i.e. used, any of the
UV-exposed pipe.3 Accordingly, this allegation of violation is withdrawn.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Items 1 and 2 for violations of 49
C.F.R. Part 192. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of
3 The issue of whether the pipe in question could have been safely stored outside for more than two years is moot.
ENSTAR contended that PHMSA misinterpreted the code to limit the outdoor storage life of plastic pipe to two
years. The agency’s position is based on the regulation’s intent to restrict the use of pipe that has been weakened by
exposure to UV light and conclusion that this purpose would be thwarted if an operator installed UV weakened pipe
in any application above ground.



4
gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety
standards established under chapter 601. Because I ordered that the allegations in Items 1 and 2
be withdrawn, the compliance terms proposed for those Items are not included in this order. This
enforcement action is closed.
___________________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

520060014_ Final Order_04262011.pdf

u.s. Department
of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20590
APR 2~ 2011
Ms. Colleen Starring
President
ENSTAR Natural Gas Company
A Division of SEMCO ENERGY
3000 Spenard Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0288
RE: CPF No. 5-2006-0014
Dear Ms. Starring:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the
allegations ofviolation. Therefore, this enforcement action is now closed. Service of the Final
Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date ofmailing, or as otherwise provided
under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
~.. J4:0f~JI
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Dave Bredin, Director of Operations, ENSTAR Natural Gas Company
Mr. Travis Renk, Operations Analyst, ENST AR Natural Gas Company
Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 00759206]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
In the Matter of )
ENSTAR Natural Gas Company, ) CPF No. 5-2006-0014
Respondent. )
)
)
)
FINAL ORDER
On October 10-13,2005, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of ENS TAR Natural
Gas Company's (Respondent or ENSTAR) Mat-Su Valley Distribution System near Wasilla,
Alaska. Respondent operates natural gas transmission and distribution systems throughout
Southern Alaska. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director),
issued to Respondent, by letter dated May 3, 2006, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed
Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed
finding that Respondent committed certain violations of49 C.F.R. Part 192. The Notice also
proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated June 1,2006 (Response). Respondent
contested the allegations and requested a hearing. A hearing via telephone conference was held
on August 29, 2007, with an attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. After
the hearing, Respondent was given 30 days to provide a post-hearing submission. OPS was
given 20 days and did submit photos ofthe racks ofpipe subject to the allegation in Item 2
below. Respondent submitted additional information on September 21, 2007.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(a)-(b), which states:
§ 192.707 Line markers for mains and transmission lines.
(a) Buried pipelines. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a
line marker must be placed and maintained as close as practical over each



2
buried main and transmission line:
(1) At each crossing of a public road and railroad; and
(2) Wherever necessary to identify the location of the transmission line or
main to reduce the possibility ofdamage or interference.
(b) Exceptions for buried pipelines. Line markers are not required for the
following pipelines:
(1) Mains and transmission lines located offshore, or at crossings of or
under waterways and other bodies ofwater.
(2) Mains in Class 3 or Class 4 locations where a damage prevention
program is in effect under § 192.614.
(3) Transmission lines in Class 3 or 4 locations until March 20, 1996.
(4) Transmission lines in Class 3 or 4 locations where placement of a line
marker is impractical.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 192.707(a)-(b) by failing to place and maintain
line markers as close as practical over each buried main line at each crossing of a public road.
Specifically, the Notice and Violation Report alleged that Respondent failed to install line
markers on distribution mains in Class 1 and Class 2 areas at public road crossings. During the
inspection, no line markers were found along Palmer Fishhook Road.
In its Response and at the hearing, ENST AR presented three arguments in contesting the
allegation ofviolation. First, Respondent argued that PHMSA's regulations should not be
enforced under the facts ofthis case. 1 Second, Respondent explained that its distribution service
area is a disconnected mix of Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 areas and proposed a "risk based"
approach. ENST AR took issue with applying § 192.707 to distribution mains in Class 1 and
Class 2 locations where the operator has a damage prevention program in place that covers all of
its service area equally. 2 Third, Respondent contended that § 192.707 is not consistent with the
principles underlying PHMSA's Damage Prevention and Public Awareness regulations.
Respondent explained that 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(b)(2) exempts distribution mains in Class 3
locations from the need for pipeline markers if the operator has a damage prevention program in
place.
)While ENSTAR agreed that pipeline markers have their place, it suggested "a 'risk based' approach to installing
pipeline markers on distribution mains in rural areas is more appropriate." The company suggested, for example,
that pipeline markers be required at road crossings on rural distribution mains only ifthey were 4" or more in
diameter. Respondent reasoned that under such a "risk based" approach, line markers might be more appropriate for
larger-diameter mains ''that move large volumes ofgas, feed hundreds ofcustomers and are more problematic if
damaged."
2 Respondent advised that its current damage prevention program covers all of its service area equally, not just in
Class 3 locations. Respondent also asserted that the implementation of its Public Awareness Program (RP 1162)
created an even more heightened awareness ofdamage prevention in its entire service area than could be achieved
through the use of line markers.



3
I have given full consideration to all ofthe evidence and arguments presented by OPS and
Respondent. Although the regulations do not currently allow for any risk-based exceptions, this
case has raised issues that require more in-depth policy and safety review. Accordingly, having
considered all of the evidence and in the interest offaimess, this allegation ofviolation is
withdrawn. PHMSA shall not be prejudiced, however, by this withdrawal nor precluded from
alleging future violations of 49 C.F.R. §192.707 against ENSTAR or any other operator.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.321, which states:
§ 192.321 Installation of plastic pipe.
(a) ...
(g) Uncased plastic pipe may be temporarily installed above ground level
under the following conditions:
(1) The operator must be able to demonstrate that the cumulative
aboveground exposure of the pipe does not exceed the manufacturer's
recommended maximum period ofexposure or 2 years, whichever is less.
The Notice alleged a violation of § 192.321 based on Respondent's storage ofuncased plastic
pipe for emergency repairs without demonstrating that the cumulative aboveground exposure of
the pipe did not exceed the manufacturer's recommended maximum period of exposure or two
years, whichever is less.
In Response, ENST AR argued that the scope ofthe regulation is limited to the temporary use of
uncased plastic pipe when installed above ground.
After considering the evidence and the allegations in the Notice, I find that there is insufficient
notice ofa violation of § 192.321 and no evidence in the record to support a finding ofviolation.
As a matter oflegal interpretation, § 192.321 restricts the temporary installation ofuncased
plastic pipe above ground unless it meets certain conditions, including less than two years ofUV
exposure. The Notice did not allege the temporary installation ofuncased plastic pipe above
ground. Further, there is no evidence in the record that ENSTAR installed, i.e. used, any ofthe
UV-exposed pipe.3 Accordingly, this allegation of violation is withdrawn.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Items 1 and 2 for violations of49
C.F.R. Part 192. Under 49 U.S.c. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of
3 The issue ofwhether the pipe in question could have been safely stored outside for more than two years is moot.
ENST AR contended that PHMSA ntisinterpreted the code to limit the outdoor storage life ofplastic pipe to two
years. The agency's position is based on the regulation'S intent to restrict the use of pipe that has been weakened by
exposure to UV light and conclusion that this purpose would be thwarted if an operator installed UV weakened pipe
in any application above ground.



4
gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety
standards established under chapter 60 I. Because I ordered that the allegations in Items 1 and 2
be withdrawn, the compliance terms proposed for those Items are not included in this order. This
enforcement action is closed.
APR II :lDli
Date Issued
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 19445