{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520090011","title":"NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH ENERGY MANAGEMENT — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2009-05-27","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.199(f), 192.201(b), 192.703(b), 192.739(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520090011.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520090011.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520090011","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520090011","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH ENERGY MANAGEMENT. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.199(f),  192.201(b),  192.703(b),  192.739(a). The case was opened on 2009-05-27 and is reported as closed as of 2010-11-15. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520090011_Final Order_11152010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090011/520090011_Final%20Order_11152010.pdf\n\n520090011_FinalOrder_11152010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090011/520090011_FinalOrder_11152010_text.pdf\n\n520090011_NOPV PCO_05272009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090011/520090011_NOPV%20PCO_05272009.pdf\n\n520090011_NOPV PCO_05272009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090011/520090011_NOPV%20PCO_05272009_text.pdf\n\n520090011_operator response_07012009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090011/520090011_operator%20response_07012009.pdf\n\n520090011_Final Order_11152010.pdf\n\nof Transportatior\nJ.S. Departmen\n1200 New Jersey Ave., SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nNOV 1 5 2010\nThe Honorable Edward S. Itta\nMayor\nNorth Slope Borough\nP.O. Box 69\nBarrow, AK 99723\nRe: CPF No. 5-2009-0011\nDear Mayor Itta:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and finds that the North Slope Borough has completed the actions specified in the\nNotice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. Therefore, this case is now closed.\nService of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as\notherwise provided 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:\nMr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA\nMr. Dennis Hinnah, Deputy Director,\n, Western Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0041 06571\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\nNorth Slope Borough, Alaska,\nCPF No. 5-2009-0011\nRespondent.\nFINAL ORDER\nOn March 3-5, 2008, 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 North Slope Borough (NSB or Respondent)'s\nfacilities and records in Barrow, Alaska. NSB owns and operates a 6-mile natural gas\ntransmission pipeline that transports gas from a gathering system located at the South Gas Field\nto the City of Barrow. The pipeline feeds a distribution system and electric power plant, both of\nwhich provide utility service to the City of Barrow. At the time of the inspection, Barrow\nUtilities and Electric Corporation was the operator of the system, but the North Slope Borough\nEnergy Management has since taken over operation of the line.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated May 27, 2009, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that NSB had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.199(f), 192.201(b), 192.703(b), and 192.739(a)\nand proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nNSB responded to the Notice by letter dated July 1, 2009 (Response). In its Response, the\ncompany renewed its argument that the NSB pipeline is exempt from the Pipeline Safety Laws\nand Regulations, pursuant to Section 2(c) of the federal Barrow Gas Field Transfer Act.\nWithout waiving this argument, NSB did not contest the allegations of violation in the Notice\nand provided information concerning the corrective actions it planned to complete by August\n2009. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one?\nThe jurisdiction of PHMSA regarding this line was addressed in a Decision on Petition for Reconsideration filed in\nCPF No. 5-1998-0016, issued on June 8, 2009. Specifically, I ruled that the exemption of the Barrow Gas Field\nTransfer Act applies to the \"Barrow gas fields\" and \"related support facilities,\" but not to the NSB transmission\npipeline. See, In re North Slope Borough, Alaska, Decision on Petition for Reconsideration, CPF No. 5-1998-0016\n(June 8, 2009) (available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).\n2 On March 10, 2010, PHMSA erroneously issued a closure letter to the North Slope Borough. This letter was\nrescinded on March 12, 2010, as the Final Order had not yet been issued in this case.\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, NSB did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part\n192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.199(f), which states:\n§ 192.199 Requirements for design of pressure relief and limiting\ndevices.\nExcept for rupture discs, each pressure relief or pressure limiting\ndevice must:\n(a) Be designed and installed so that the size of the openings, pipe.\nand fittings located between the system to be protected and the pressure\nrelieving device, and the size of the vent line, are adequate to prevent\nhammering of the valve and to prevent impairment of relief capacity....\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.199(f) by failing to ensure that\npressure-relief devices were installed so that the size of the openings, pipe, and fittings located\nbetween the transmission pipeline and the pressure-relieving device, including the vent line, were\nadequate to prevent impairment of the relief capacity. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the\ndischarge vent for a relief valve, SSD-310, was connected to a common manifold line that had\nseveral other devices connected to it. All of the devices relieved into the same common\nmanifold.\nThe Notice alleged that this design did not allow for the safe venting of SSD-310 because a\npressure build-up could rupture the pipeline. Industry practice requires pressure-relief devices to\ncontain their own independent vent to the outside of a building and to be sized in accordance\nwith the manufacturer's instructions in order to prevent hazardous conditions such as a high-\ndischarge pressure in the discharge piping. Respondent did not contest this allegation of\nviolation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 192.199(f) by failing to ensure that all pressure relief and limiting devices\nwere adequate to prevent impairment of relief capacity.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.201(b), which states:\n§ 192.201 Required capacity of pressure relieving and limiting stations.\n(b) When more than one pressure regulating or compressor station\nfeeds into a pipeline, relief valves or other protective devices must be\ninstalled at each station to ensure that the complete failure of the largest\negulators or compressors in that station. will not impose pressures on an\napacity regulator or compressor, or any single run of lesser capacit!\n3 National Fuel Gas Handbook, Section 5.8.5 (2002).\n\n\n\n3\npart of the pipeline or distribution system in excess of those for which it\nwas designed, or against which it was protected, whichever is lower.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.201(b) by failing to provide\nseparate relief valves for the primary and secondary gas handling facilities known as the East and\nWalakpa facilities. Both facilities are connected to the same overpressure protection device.\nSince both facilities include pressure regulating stations and feed the Barrow natural gas\ntransmission line, Respondent must provide separate overpressure protection devices to ensure\nthe safety of the line. Specifically, the Notice alleged that NSB failed to provide separate relief\ndevices for the primary East gas handling facility and the secondary Walakpa gas handling\nfacility, each of which include pressure regulating stations and feed into the Barrow pipeline.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.201(b) by failing to provide\nseparate relief valves or other protective devices at the East and Walakpa gas handling facilities.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.703(b), which states:\n§ 192.703 General.\n(a)\n(b) Each segment of pipeline that becomes unsafe must be\nreplaced, repaired, or removed from service....\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.703(b) by failing to replace, repair,\nor remove from service a segment of pipeline that had become unsafe. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that NSB failed to maintain the pressure relief valve SSD-310 in a safe condition. This\nvalve is the primary overpressure protection device for NSB's gas transmission line that serves\nthe City of Barrow. The valve was locked out of service on April 4, 2007, and had not been\nrepaired and placed back into service at the time of the inspection in March 2008. As a result,\nthere was no overpressure protection on this segment of NSB's natural gas transmission line.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.703(b) by failing to replace, repair, or\nremove from service a pipeline that had become unsafe.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a), which states:\n§ 192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and\ntesting.\n(a)\nEach pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture\ndiscs), and pressure regulating station and its equipment must be subjected\nat intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year,\nto inspections and tests to determine that it is -\n(1) In good mechanical condition;\n(2) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of\noperation for 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\n\n\n4\n(4) Properly installed and protected from dirt, liquids, or other\nconditions that might prevent proper operation.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a) by failing to demonstrate\nthat each pressure limiting station, relief device, and pressure regulating station had been\ninspected and tested annually. Specifically, the Notice alleged that NSB could not provide\ninspection records for each pressure limiting station, relief device, and regulating station for each\ncalendar year. Inspection records were not available for two pressure regulating devices within\nthe primary South gas handling facility for calendar year 2007, and two pressure regulating\ndevices within the Walakpa secondary gas handling facility for calendar years 2005-2007.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. 192.739(a) by failing to demonstrate\nthat each pressure limiting station, relief device, and pressure regulating station had been\ninspected and tested annually.\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 Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.199(f), 192.201(b), 192.703(b), and 192.739(a), respectively.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns\nor operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards\nestablished under chapter 601. The Director indicates that Respondent has taken the following\nactions specified in the proposed compliance order:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.199(f) (Item 1), Respondent has\nreplaced the SSD-310 valve with a pressure relief valve and installed vent piping to allow\nthe valve to vent directly to the atmosphere.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 192.201(b) (Item 2), Respondent has\ninstalled pressure-relief valves in both gas handling facilities and installed vent piping to\nallow the valves to vent directly to the atmosphere.\n3. With respect to the violation of § 192.703(b) (Item 3), Respondent provided a\nbackup compressor for the SSD-310 valve as a temporary fix until the valve could be\nreplaced, and added the valve to the NSB's daily inspection list. On October 26, 2009,\nPHMSA confirmed that Respondent had installed pressure-relief valves in both the\nprimary and secondary gas handling facilities, eliminating the need for the temporary\nbackup compressor. The new relief valves are scheduled for annual maintenance and\nvalve capacity verification.\n4. With respect to the violation of § 192.739(a) (Item 4), on October 26, 2009,\nPHMSA confirmed that Respondent had established a maintenance program for the new\npressure-relief valves. Respondent also completed annual maintenance for the other\ncontrol devices in 2009.\n\n\n\n5\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations.\nTherefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. $ 190.5.\nNOV 1 5 2010\nDate Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n520090011_FinalOrder_11152010_text.pdf\n\nNOV 15 2010\nThe Honorable Edward S. Itta\nMayor\nNorth Slope Borough\nP.O. Box 69\nBarrow, AK 99723\nRe: CPF No. 5-2009-0011\nDear Mayor Itta:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and finds that the North Slope Borough has completed the actions specified in the\nNotice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. Therefore, this case is now closed.\nService of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as\notherwise provided 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: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0041 0657]\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 )\nNorth Slope Borough, Alaska, ) CPF No. 5-2009-0011\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn March 3-5, 2008, 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 North Slope Borough (NSB or Respondent)’s\nfacilities and records in Borrow, Alaska. NSB owns and operates a 6-mile natural transmission\npipeline that transports gas from a gas gathering system located at the South Gas Field to the\nCity of Borrow, Alaska. The pipeline feeds a distribution system and an electric power plan,\nboth of which provide utility service to the City of Barrow. At the time of the inspection,\nBarrow Utilities and Electric Corporation was the operator of the system, but North Slope\nBorough Energy Management has since taken over operation of the pipeline.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated May 27, 2009, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that NSB had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.199(f), 192.201(b), 192.703(b), and 192.739(a)\nand proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nNSB responded to the Notice by letter dated July 1, 2009 (Response). In its Response, the\ncompany renewed its argument that the NSB pipeline is exempt from the Pipeline Safety Laws\nand Regulations, pursuant to Section 2(c) of the Barrow Gas Field Transfer Act.1 Without\nwaiving this argument, NSB did not contest the allegations of violation in the Notice and\nprovided information concerning the corrective actions it planned to complete by August 2009.\nRespondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.2\n1 The jurisdiction of PHMSA regarding this line was addressed in a Decision on Petition for Reconsideration filed in\nCPF No. 5-1998-0016, issued on June 8, 2009. In the Decision, I ruled that the exemption in the federal Barrow Gas\nField Transfer Act applies to the “Barrow gas fields” and “related support facilities,” but not to the NSB\ntransmission pipeline. See, In re North Slope Borough, Alaska, Decision on Petition for Reconsideration, CPF No.\n5-1998-0016 (June 8, 2009) (available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).\n2 On March 10, 2010, PHMSA erroneously issued a closure letter to the North Slope Borough. This letter was\nrescinded on March 12, 2010, as the Final Order had not yet been issued in this case.\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, NSB did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part\n192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.199(f), which states:\n§ 192.199 Requirements for design of pressure relief and limiting\ndevices.\nExcept for rupture discs, each pressure relief or pressure limiting\ndevice must:\n(a) ….\n(f) Be designed and installed so that the size of the openings, pipe,\nand fittings located between the system to be protected and the pressure\nrelieving device, and the size of the vent line, are adequate to prevent\nhammering of the valve and to prevent impairment of relief capacity....\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.199(f) by failing to ensure that\npressure relief devices were installed so that the size of the openings, pipe, and fittings located\nbetween the transmission pipeline and the pressure relieving device, including the vent line, were\nadequate to prevent impairment of the relief capacity. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the\ndischarge vent for a relief valve, SSD-310, was connected to a common manifold line that had\nseveral other devices connected to it. All of the devices relieved into the same common\nmanifold.\nThe Notice alleged that this design did not allow for the safe venting of SSD-310 because a\npressure build-up could rupture the pipeline. Industry practice requires pressure-relief devices to\ncontain their own independent vent to the outside of a building and to be sized in accordance\nwith the manufacturer’s instructions in order to prevent hazardous conditions such as a high-\ndischarge pressure in the discharge piping.\nviolation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 192.199(f) by failing to ensure that all pressure relief and limiting devices\nwere adequate to prevent impairment of relief capacity.\n3 Respondent did not contest this allegation of\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.201(b), which states:\n§ 192.201 Required capacity of pressure relieving and limiting stations.\n(a) ….\n(b) When more than one pressure regulating or compressor station\nfeeds into a pipeline, relief valves or other protective devices must be\ninstalled at each station to ensure that the complete failure of the largest\ncapacity regulator or compressor, or any single run of lesser capacity\nregulators or compressors in that station, will not impose pressures on any\npart of the pipeline or distribution system in excess of those for which it\nwas designed, or against which it was protected, whichever is lower.\n3 National Fuel Gas Handbook, Section 5.8.5 (2002).\n\n\n\n3\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.201(b) by failing to provide\nseparate relief valves for the primary and secondary gas handling facilities known as the East and\nWalakpa facilities. Both facilities are connected to the same overpressure protection device.\nSince both facilities include pressure regulating stations and feed the Barrow natural gas\ntransmission line, Respondent must provide separate overpressure protection devices to ensure\nthe safety of the line. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly,\nbased upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.201(b) by failing to provide separate relief valves or other protective devices at the East\nand Walakpa gas handling facilities.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.703(b), which states:\n§ 192.703 General.\n(a) ….\n(b) Each segment of pipeline that becomes unsafe must be\nreplaced, repaired, or removed from service….\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.703(b) by failing to replace, repair,\nor remove from service a segment of pipeline that had become unsafe. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that NSB failed to maintain the pressure relief valve SSD-310 in a safe condition. This\nvalve is the primary overpressure protection device for NSB’s gas transmission line that serves\nBarrow. The valve was locked out of service on April 4, 2007, and had not been repaired and\nplaced back into service at the time of the inspection in March 2008. As a result, there was no\noverpressure protection on this segment of NSB’s natural gas transmission line. Respondent did\nnot contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of the evidence, I find\nthat Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.703(b) by failing to replace, repair, or remove from\nservice a pipeline that had become unsafe.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a), which states:\n§ 192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and\ntesting.\n(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture\ndiscs), and pressure regulating station and its equipment must be subjected\nat intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year,\nto inspections and tests to determine that it is –\n(1) In good mechanical condition;\n(2) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of\noperation for 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.\n\n\n\n4\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a) by failing to demonstrate\nthat each pressure limiting station, relief device, and pressure regulating station had been\ninspected and tested annually. Specifically, the Notice alleged that NSB could not provide\ninspection records for each pressure limiting station, relief device, and regulating station for each\ncalendar year. Inspection records were not available for two pressure regulating devices within\nthe primary South gas handling facility for the calendar year 2007, and two pressure regulating\ndevices within the Walakpa secondary gas handling facility for the years 2005-2007.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. 192.739(a) by failing to demonstrate\nthat each pressure limiting station, relief device, and pressure regulating station had been\ninspected and tested annually.\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 Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.199(f), 192.201(b), 192.703(b), and 192.739(a), respectively.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns\nor operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards\nestablished under chapter 601. The Director indicates that Respondent has taken the following\nactions specified in the proposed compliance order:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.199(f) (Item 1), Respondent has\nreplaced the SSD-310 valve with a pressure relief valve and installed vent piping to allow\nthe valve to vent directly to the atmosphere.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 192.201(b) (Item 2), Respondent has\ninstalled pressure-relief valves in both gas handling facilities and installed vent piping to\nallow the valves to vent directly to the atmosphere.\n3. With respect to the violation of § 192.703(b) (Item 3), Respondent provided a\nbackup compressor for the SSD-310 valve as a temporary fix until the valve could be\nreplaced, and added the valve to the NSB’s daily inspection list. On October 26, 2009,\nPHMSA confirmed that Respondent had installed pressure-relief valves in both the\nprimary and secondary gas handling facilities, eliminating the need for the temporary\nbackup compressor. The new relief valves are scheduled for annual maintenance and\nvalve capacity verification.\n4. With respect to the violation of § 192.739(a) (Item 4), on October 26, 2009,\nPHMSA confirmed that Respondent had established a maintenance program for the new\npressure-relief valves. Respondent also completed annual maintenance for the other\ncontrol devices in 2009.\n\n\n\n5\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations.\nTherefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":26256}