{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520150007","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":"2015-06-18","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 191.11(a), 192.491(c), 192.603(b), 192.614(a), 192.615(b)(2), 192.739(a)(3).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520150007.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520150007.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520150007","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520150007","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ENSTAR NATURAL GAS CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 191.11(a),  192.491(c),  192.603(b),  192.614(a),  192.615(b)(2),  192.739(a)(3). The case was opened on 2015-06-18 and is reported as closed as of 2017-02-24. Proposed civil penalty: $24,800. Assessed civil penalty: $6,100. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520150007_Closure Letter_02242017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520150007/520150007_Closure%20Letter_02242017.pdf\n\n520150007_Closure Letter_02242017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520150007/520150007_Closure%20Letter_02242017_text.pdf\n\n520150007_Final Order_11152016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520150007/520150007_Final%20Order_11152016.pdf\n\n520150007_Final Order_11152016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520150007/520150007_Final%20Order_11152016_text.pdf\n\n520150007_NOPV PCP PCO_06182015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520150007/520150007_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06182015.pdf\n\n520150007_NOPV PCP PCO_06182015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520150007/520150007_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06182015_text.pdf\n\n520150007_Operator Response to Notice_07132015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520150007/520150007_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_07132015.pdf\n\n520150007_Closure Letter_02242017_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nFebruary 24, 2017\nMr. David Harris\nPresident & CEO\nAltaGas, Ltd.\n1700, 355 4 Avenue SW\nCalgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 0J1\nRe: CPF 5-2015-0007\nCase Closure\nDear Mr. Harris:\nOn November, 15, 2016, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA) issued to your subsidiary, ENSTAR Natural Gas Company (ENSTAR), a Final\nOrder (Order) in the above-referenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order, a Civil\nPenalty assessment, and a requirement to amend your procedures. Based on our review of the\ndocumentation ENSTAR provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has\nbeen determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 D. Hassell\n\n520150007_NOPV PCP PCO_06182015_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJune 18, 2015\nMr. Jared Green\nPresident\nEnstar Natural Gas Company\nP.O. Box 190288\nAnchorage, AK 99519-0288\nCPF 5-2015-0007\nDear Mr. Green:\nDuring the weeks of March 17, 2014 and April 28, 2014, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant\nto Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected your natural gas distribution system in\nAnchorage, Alaska.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the\nprobable violations are:\n1. §192.603 General Provisions\n(b) Each operator shall keep records necessary to administer the procedures\nestablished under §192.605.\nEnstar Natural Gas Company (Enstar) did not maintain the records needed to administer the\nprocedures required under §192.605, specifically those required under §192.605 (b) regarding\nmaintenance and normal operations. Enstar is required to have and implement procedures in 49\n\n\n\nCFR, Part 192, Subparts L and M. The records required by §192.603 must be kept to administer\nthese required procedures.\nEnstar did not maintain complete records of periodic leak surveys on its natural gas distribution\nsystem. Periodic leak surveys are required in 49 CFR Subpart M, §192.706 and §192.723.\nPHMSA representatives discovered numerous leak survey daily reports and supporting leak\nsurvey maps that were incomplete or had missing information. Noted record omissions or\ninconsistencies were:\n• Grid A540 showed the inspected lines marked in the color brown and corresponding\nDaily Leak Survey Report dated October 14, 2013 indicated the lines surveyed on that\ndate were to be marked in red.\n• Daily Leak Survey Report dated October 4, 2013 was incomplete. It did not indicate\nwhich grids were surveyed on October 4, 2013, although Grid A744 appeared to be a\ncorresponding grid map that matched the report.\n• Grid A1432 had 2 segments of pipe that were not highlighted on the grid, indicating that\nthey were not leak surveyed in 2013 (compare to leak survey grid of 2009).\n• Grid A1436 had a segment of pipe that was not highlighted on the grid, indicating that it\nwas not leak surveyed in 2013.\n• Grid SW54 indicated that it was leak surveyed by “KQ” on September 18, 2013, but the\ncorresponding Daily Leak Survey Report did not include Grid SW54 on the report.\n• Daily Leak Survey Report dated October 26, 2012 recorded leaks found that were not\nindicated on the corresponding grid map Grid A465.\nEnstar must keep records to properly administer all of the operation and maintenance procedures\nrequired under §192.605.\n2. §192.614 Damage prevention program\n(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, each operator of a\nburied pipeline must carry out, in accordance with this section, a written program\nto prevent damage to that pipeline from excavation activities. For the purposes of\nthis section, the term “excavation activities” includes excavation, blasting, boring,\ntunneling, backfilling, the removal of aboveground structures by either explosive or\nmechanical means, and other earthmoving operations.\nEnstar did not specify in their Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) 1401 titled “Damage\nPrevention Program,” the Federal Pipeline Safety Code requirement §192.614(c)(6)(i). This\nrequirement requires an operator to provide follow-up inspections of its pipeline to verify the\nintegrity of the pipeline when the operator has reason to believe it could be damaged by\nexcavation. Enstar does follow a practice for inspection during or after excavation activities,\n2\n\n\n\nhowever the written procedures did not adequately describe this practice. In addition, PHMSA\nrepresentatives found that supporting damage prevention program procedures, SOP 1405 “Line\nLocating,” and SOP 1145 “Excavation Standards” did not require inspection during or after\nexcavation activities.\n3. §192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and testing.\n(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs), and pressure\nregulating station and its equipment must be subjected at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year, to inspections and tests to determine\nthat it is-\n(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, set to control or relieve at\nthe correct pressure consistent with the pressure limits of §192.201(a)\nEnstar did not ensure that pipeline operating pressure did not exceed equipment pressure\nlimitations at regulator station named A203 Elmendorf Power. The regulator station maintenance\nrecord for A203, dated July 1, 2013, had a recorded inlet pressure of 430 psi that exceeded the\nregulator pressure rating of 285 psi.\n4. §191.11 Distribution system: Annual report\n(a) General. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator of a\ndistribution pipeline system must submit an annual report for that system on DOT\nForm PHMSA F 7100.1-1. This report must be submitted each year, not later than\nMarch 15, for the preceding calendar year.\nEnstar did not accurately report leaks and the number of miles of distribution main lines in their\n2013 Annual Report. Enstar reported “0” leaks in Section F in their original submittal. Further\ninvestigation revealed that Enstar experienced three (3) leaks on federal lands in the 2013\ncalendar year that should have been reported in its 2013 Annual Report. After this discovery,\nEnstar submitted a supplemental Annual Report dated May 28, 2014 for 2013 calendar that\nshowed the three (3) leaks on federal land.\nPHMSA representatives discovered that higher pressure distribution main lines were not reported\nin Enstar’s 2013 Annual Report, and were found documented in the Annual Report for Alaska\nPipeline Company – a partner company to Enstar. Enstar must appropriately document its higher\npressure distribution main lines in its annual report each calendar year.\n5. §192.491 Corrosion control records\n(c) Each operator shall maintain a record of each test, survey, or inspection\nrequired by this subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of\ncorrosion control measures or that a corrosive condition does not exist. These\nrecords must be retained for at least 5 years, except hat records related to §192.465\n(a) and (e) and §192.475(b) must be retained for as long as the pipeline remains in\nservice.\n3\n\n\n\nEnstar did not maintain records demonstrating compliance in meeting atmospheric corrosion\ninspection frequency of every three (3) calendar years. Enstar currently employs a practice of\nusing leak surveys in conjunction with atmospheric corrosion inspections to meet the code\nrequirement, however leak survey records did not show evidence that atmospheric corrosion was\nevaluated. PHMSA representatives discovered daily leak survey reports that did not indicate\natmospheric corrosion inspections. In addition, Enstar’s Leak Survey & Atmospheric Corrosion\nSurveys Rotation Schedule shows leak surveys highlighted in black and atmospheric corrosion\nsurveys highlighted in red, indicating that inspections of exclusively atmospheric corrosion are\ncompleted on four-year cycles.\n6. §192.615 Emergency Plans\n(b) Each operator shall:\n(2) Train the appropriate operating personnel to assure that they are knowledgeable\nof the emergency procedures and verify that the training is effective.\nEnstar did not require appropriate operating personnel be trained to their emergency SOP 1150,\nDamage Response, procedure. Enstar’s gas control dispatchers’ roles are described in this\ndamage response procedure but did not appear to be trained to it. Furthermore, Enstar’s\nOperator Qualification (OQ) program and the 2013 Master Covered Task List does not show\ntheir OQ training to learn this covered task (E-Learning Module 1436) is required by gas control\ndispatchers. Gas control dispatchers must be trained to, and demonstrate their training was\neffective, to implement their role under SOP 1150.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000\nper violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of\nviolations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not\nexceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a\nrelated series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documentation involved in the above probable violations and has recommended that\nyou be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $24,800 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $6,100\n3 $18,700\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item(s) 1-6 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Enstar\nNatural Gas Company. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and\nmade a part of this Notice.\n4\n\n\n\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All\nmaterial you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If\nyou believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment\nunder 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second\ncopy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted\nand an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice,\nthis constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further\nnotice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2015-5007 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format to PHP-WRADMIN@dot.gov whenever\npossible.\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 C. Ishikawa (#145394)\n5\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Enstar Natural Gas Company a Compliance Order\nincorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Enstar Natural\nGas Company with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to Enstar’s leak survey\ndocuments, Enstar must modify its leak survey procedures to ensure leak surveys\ndocuments, including the Daily Leak Survey Reports and highlighted grid maps,\nare accurate and complete after the survey is performed.\nIn regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to Enstar’s procedures, SOP\n1401 “Damage Prevention Program,” Enstar must amend its written procedures\nand specify in SOP 1401 that it will provide follow-up inspections of its pipeline\nto verify the integrity of the pipeline when the operator has reason to believe it\ncould be damaged by excavation.\nIn regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to Enstar’s regulator station\nrecords, Enstar must ensure regulator station maintenance is performed\nappropriately and in a safe manner. Enstar must revise its regulation maintenance\nprocedures to ensure records documenting regulator station maintenance are\naccurate and complete after the maintenance activity is performed.\nIn regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to Enstar’s annual reports,\nEnstar must submit a supplemental Annual Report to PHMSA for 2013. Enstar\nmust ensure that it accurately reports the number of leaks on federal lands and\nhigh-pressure distribution main mileage of their system.\nIn regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to Enstar’s atmospheric\ncorrosion inspection frequency, Enstar must document all atmospheric corrosion\ninspections and retain records of the inspections for the required retention period.\nIn regard to Item Number 6 of the Notice pertaining to Enstar’s training of its gas\ncontrol dispatchers, Enstar must require course, SOP 1150, to be part of the\nrequired OQ program training for its gas control dispatchers and ensure that their\ntraining records clearly specify the course completion dates.\nPlease complete Item 1 through 6 within 90 days after receipt of a Final Order for\nthe operator to complete the items.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Enstar Natural Gas Company maintain\ndocumentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this\nCompliance Order and submit the total to Chris Hoidal, Director, Western\n6\n\n\n\nRegion, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested\nthat these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost\nassociated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline\ninfrastructure.\n7\n\n520150007_Final Order_11152016_text.pdf\n\nNovember 15, 2016\nMr. David Harris\nPresident & CEO\nAltaGas, Ltd.\n1700, 355 - 4th Avenue, S.W.\nCalgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 0J1\nRe: CPF No. 5-2015-0007\nDear Mr. Harris:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary,\nEnstar Natural Gas Company. It makes findings of violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of\n$6,100, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Enstar to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty\nhas been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director,\nWestern Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified\nmail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, OPS\nMr. Jared Green, President, Enstar Natural Gas Company, P. O. Box 190288,\nAnchorage, Alaska 99519-0288;\nMs. Moira Smith, Esq., Vice President and General Counsel, Enstar Natural Gas\nCompany, P. O. Box 190288, Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0288;\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nEnstar Natural Gas Company, ) CPF No. 5-2015-0007\na subsidiary of AltaGas, Ltd., )\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nDuring the weeks of March 17, 2014, and April 28, 2014, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117,\nrepresentatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the natural gas\ndistribution system and records of Enstar Natural Gas Company (Enstar or Respondent), in\nAnchorage, Alaska. Enstar, a subsidiary of AltaGas, Ltd.,1 is a regulated public utility that\ndelivers natural gas to approximately 140,000 residential, commercial, and industrial customers\nin and around the Anchorage and Cook Inlet areas in Alaska.2 Enstar’s natural gas distribution\nsystem consists of approximately 6,000 miles of natural gas distribution pipelines.3\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated June 18, 2015, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that Enstar had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 191.11, 192.491, 192.603,\n192.614, 192.615, and 192.739, and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $24,800 for the alleged\nviolations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the\nalleged violations.\nEnstar responded to the Notice by letter dated July 13, 2015 (Response), contesting several of the\nallegations, offering additional information in response to the Notice, and requesting that the\nproposed civil penalty be waived. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived\nits right to one.\n1 Enstar Natural Gas Co. – About Enstar, website: https://www.enstarnaturalgas.com/about-enstar/ (last accessed\nMarch 31, 2016).\n2 Id.\n3 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (June 18, 2015) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-0007\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Parts 191 and 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b), which states:\n§ 192.603 General provisions.\n(a) . . .\n(b) Each operator shall keep records necessary to administer the\nprocedures established under § 192.605.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b) by failing to keep records\nnecessary to administer procedures required under § 192.605. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat Enstar failed to keep records necessary to comply with § 192.605(b), relating to maintenance\nand normal operations of its natural gas distribution system. According to the Notice, Enstar\nfailed repeatedly to keep leak-survey daily reports and supporting maps for leak surveys required\nunder 49 C.FR. §§ 192.706 and 192.723. The Notice alleged that Respondent’s records for\nleakage surveys conducted on October 26, 2012, September 18, 2013, October 4, 2013, October\n14, 2013, as well as for surveys conducted on Grids A1432 and A1436 in 2013, were incomplete\nor had missing information.\nIn its Response, Enstar contested this allegation of violation. The company stated that it\nmaintained two complementary sets of records for daily leak surveys, i.e., daily leak-survey\nreports and field notes. While Respondent conceded that its daily leak-survey reports were\n“incomplete,” it asserted that the field notes were complete and, when combined with the leak\nsurveys, showed which pipelines had been surveyed and where leaks had occurred.\nUpon reviewing the record, I find that Enstar’s records for the survey conducted on October 14,\n2013, were indeed complete and accurate; I therefore withdraw this portion of the allegations in\nItem 1 of the Notice. However, for the leak-survey records on the other dates listed above, I find\nthat Enstar violated § 192.603(b) by failing to keep records necessary to administer procedures\nestablished under § 192.605.\nUnder § 192.603(b), Respondent has a duty to keep records necessary to conduct normal\noperations on its system, including records of leak surveys. PHMSA has interpreted\n§ 192.603(b) to mean that records need to be complete, accurate, and informative enough for an\noperator to meet all regulatory requirements for operations and maintenance. For example, in the\nfinal order issued In the Matter of Area Energy, LLC, PHMSA found that the operator had failed\nto maintain proper records of notifications of planned excavation activities near its pipeline.4 In\nAera, PHMSA found that the operator had only kept records of excavation activities within the\nright-of-way of the pipeline and not adjacent to it, a practice that did not constitute maintaining\ncomplete and accurate records that could be used to assess the “operator's promptness in making\n4 In the Matter of Aera Energy, LLC, Final Order, CPF No. 5-2002-1002, (January 5, 2005); See also, In the Matter\nof Merit Energy Co., Final Order, CPF No. 5-2004-1011, (July 16, 2009) (both available at\nwww.phmsa.gov/pipeline/enforcment) (available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement)\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-0007\nPage 3\ndeterminations about whether the pipeline right-of-way is affected, and the manner in which\nthese determinations are made, with respect to every excavation notification it receives.”5\nSimilarly, in this case, by dividing the records of its leak surveys between leak survey reports\nand field notes and having records that contained numerous errors and mistakes, Enstar\nemployees did not have access to one accurate and complete set of leak-survey reports that could\nbe used to determine when the company’s distribution system had been surveyed or where leaks\nhad occurred. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n§ 191.603(b) by failing to maintain records necessary to administer procedures required under §\n192.605.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.614(a), which states:\n§ 192.614 Damage prevention program.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, each\noperator of a buried pipeline must carry out, in accordance with this section,\na written program to prevent damage to that pipeline from excavation\nactivities. For the purposes of this section, the term “excavation activities”\nincludes excavation, blasting, boring, tunneling, backfilling, the removal of\naboveground structures by either explosive or mechanical means, and other\nearthmoving operations.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.614(a) by failing to carry out a\nwritten program to prevent damage from excavation activities to its natural gas distribution\nsystem. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enstar’s written damage prevention procedures did\nnot meet the requirement in 49 C.F.R. § 192.614(c)(6)(i) that operators verify the integrity of\ntheir pipelines when they have reason to believe the lines could be damaged by excavation\nactivities.6 While the Notice acknowledged that Enstar did have a practice of inspecting its\npipeline during or after excavation activities, several of Enstar’s relevant procedures did not\nrequire inspections during or after excavation activities.\nIn its Response, Enstar did not contest this allegation of violation, but stated that it had updated\nits ENSTAR SOP 1401: Damage Prevention Program procedures so that company personnel will\nverify the integrity of its system when they had reason to believe it could be damaged by\nexcavation activities. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 192.614(a) by failing to carry out a written program to prevent damage from\nexcavation activities to its natural gas distribution system.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a)(3), which states:\n5 See supra note 4.\n6 Section 49 C.F.R. § 192.614(c)(6)(i) provides that an operator’s damage prevention program must provide for the\ninspection of such pipelines “as frequently as necessary during and after the activities to verify the integrity of the\npipeline…”\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-0007\nPage 4\n§ 192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and\ntesting.\n(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs),\nand pressure regulating station and its equipment must be subjected at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to\ninspections and tests to determine that it is–\n(1) …\n(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, set to control or\nrelieve at the correct pressure consistent with the pressure limits of\n§ 192.201(a); . . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a)(3) by failing to ensure that\nits A203 Elmendorf Power Regulator Station was inspected to determine that it was set to control\nor limit the pipeline’s operating pressure consistent with the pressure limits of § 192.201(a).\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that the July 1, 2013 records for the station showed a recorded\ninlet pressure of 430 psi, which exceeded the regulator pressure rating of 285 psi.\nIn its Response, Enstar contested this allegation of violation. Respondent contended that on July\n1, 2013, during annual station maintenance at its A203 Elmendorf Power Station, an Enstar\nemployee inaccurately recorded a pressure of 430 psi. Respondent further asserted that at no\ntime did the pressure at the A203 Elmendorf Power Station exceed 260 psi, a fact confirmed and\ndocumented by separate telemetry records.7 These records were submitted as Attachment 9 to\nthe Response.\nUpon review of the Response, I accept Enstar’s argument and hereby order that Item 3 and its\nassociated proposed penalty be withdrawn.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.11(a), which states:\n§ 191.11 Distribution system: Annual report.\n(a) General. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each\noperator of a distribution pipeline system must submit an annual report for\nthat system on DOT Form PHMSA F 7100.1-1. This report must be\nsubmitted each year, not later than March 15, for the proceeding calendar\nyear.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.11(a) by failing to submit an\naccurate annual report for its natural gas distribution system. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat in its 2013 annual report, Enstar did not accurately include the number of leaks that the\ncompany had experienced on its system and failed to include its higher-pressure distribution\nmain lines. The latter were found to be documented in the 2013 Annual Report for the Alaska\nPipeline Co. (APC), a partner company to Enstar.\nIn its Response, Enstar conceded that its annual report did not accurately include the number of\n7 Response, at 5, 41.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-0007\nPage 5\nleaks on a section of its gas distribution system. Enstar stated that it had taken steps to modify its\nprocedures for composing its annual report and that the number of leaks on its system would be\naccurately reported in the future.\nAs for the higher-pressure distribution mains, Respondent initially contested the assertion that it\nneeded to include these lines in its annual report. Enstar argued that APC was a separate\ncompany and that these lines were actually owned by APC. After speaking with PHMSA\nofficials on July 9, 2015, Enstar agreed to work with APC to continue to include these lines in\nEnstar’s new Distribution Integrity Management Program (DIMP). Enstar and APC also agreed\nto file a new DIMP plan for the APC high-pressure distribution lines, submit a corrected 2014\nAPC transmission report to remove these lines, and create a new 2014 annual distribution report\nfor APC.\nAccordingly, I find Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.11(a) by failing to submit an accurate\nannual report for its natural gas distribution system.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.491(c), which states:\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\nnot exist. These records must be retained for at least 5 years, except that\nrecords related to §§ 192.465(a) and (e) and 192.475(b) must be retained\nfor as long as the pipeline remains in service.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.491(c) by failing to maintain\nrecords demonstrating that atmospheric corrosion inspections had been completed in sufficient\ndetail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that corrosive conditions did\nnot exist on its pipeline. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enstar used leak-survey reports, in\nconjunction with atmospheric corrosion inspections, to meet this requirement but that these leak-\nsurvey reports did not indicate that atmospheric corrosion inspections had actually been\nperformed at least once every three calendar years, as required under § 192.481(a). The Notice\nfurther alleged that Enstar’s Leak Survey & Atmospheric Corrosion Inspection Rotation Schedule\nindicated that inspections for atmospheric corrosion had been completed on four-year cycles,\nrather than three.\nIn its Response, Enstar did not contest this allegation of violation but stated that its written\nprocedures had been modified to provide that atmospheric corrosion inspections are conducted\nduring routine leak surveys.8 Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.491(c) by failing to maintain records demonstrating that\natmospheric corrosion inspections had been completed, in sufficient detail to demonstrate the\nadequacy of its corrosion control measures.\n8 Response, at 7.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-0007\nPage 6\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(b), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.615 Emergency plans.\n(a) ...\n(b) Each operator shall: …\n(2) Train the appropriate operating personnel to assure that they are\nknowledgeable of the emergency procedures and verify that the training is\neffective.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(b)(2) by failing to train\nappropriate operating personnel to assure that they are knowledgeable of the company’s\nemergency procedures. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enstar’s gas-control dispatchers did\nnot appear to be trained in the company’s emergency procedure, SOP 1150, Damage Response.\nFurther, the Notice alleged that Respondent’s Operator Qualification (OQ) program and 2013\nMaster OQ Covered Task List did not show that Enstar’s gas-control dispatchers were included\namong the personnel required to be trained in Enstar’s emergency procedures.\nIn its Response, Enstar did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, after\nconsidering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(b)(2) by\nfailing to require its gas-control dispatchers to be trained in Enstar’s emergency damage response\nprocedure – training necessary to carry out their assigned roles in this procedure.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil\npenalty of $24,800 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $6,100 for Respondent’s alleged violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b), for failing to keep records necessary to administer procedures required\nunder § 192.605.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-0007\nPage 7\nAs discussed above, I found that Enstar violated § 192.603(b) by failing to maintain records\nnecessary to administer procedures required under § 192.605(b), relating to maintenance and\nnormal operations. Respondent asserts the proposed civil penalty for this violation should be\nwaived because it has taken steps to enhance the completeness and accuracy of its records and is\ndeveloping an internal audit process to review its field records for accuracy and completeness.\nDespite these post-inspection steps, Respondent still failed to comply with § 192.603(b) at all\ntimes and to keep accurate and complete records necessary to conduct normal operations.\nFurther, PHMSA’s representatives discovered this violation, and Enstar’s records indicated that\nproper leak surveys during the proper inspection intervals had not been conducted. Also,\nproposed penalty has already taken into account the relatively minimal impact of the violation on\nsafety; the proposed penalty would have been higher if this violation had a more direct impact on\npipeline safety. Finally, Enstar has not presented any specific reason for a reduction or\nelimination of the proposed civil penalty. Therefore, based upon the foregoing, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $6,100 for violating § 192.603(b).\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $18,700 for Respondent’s alleged violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a)(3), for failing to ensure that a pressure-relief or -limiting device at its\nA203 Elmendorf Power Regulator Station was set to control or relieve at a pressure consistent\nwith the pressure limits of § 192.201(a). As discussed above, I have withdrawn this Item and the\nassociated proposed civil penalty of $18,700.\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a reduced total civil penalty of $6,100.\nFailure to pay the $6,100 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%) 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 district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 through 6 for violations of\n49 C.F.R. §§ 192.603(b), 192.614(a), 192.739(a)(3), § 191.11(a), § 192.491(c), and\n§ 192.615(b)(2). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of\ngas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility, is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under chapter 601. The Director has indicated that Respondent has taken\nthe following actions to address some of the cited violations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.614(a) (Item 2), Entsar has updated its\nENSTAR SOP 1401: Damage Prevention Program so that company personnel will\nverify the integrity of its natural gas distribution system when they have reason to\nbelieve the system could be damaged by excavation activities;\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2015-0007\nPage 8\n2. With respect to the violation of § 192.491(c) (Item 5), Enstar has updated its form,\nSOP 1415 Routine Leak Survey, so that its inspectors will now note where\natmospheric corrosion exists on its natural gas distribution system, as well as the\nextent and location of each instance of atmospheric corrosion;\n3. With respect to the violation of § 192.615(b)(2) (Item 6), Enstar has added its SOP\n1150, Damage Response, to its Gas Control OQ curriculum, which has resulted in the\ntraining and testing of its Gas Control employees in the company’s emergency\nprocedures.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations.\nTherefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Items 2, 5, and 6 are not included in\nthis Order.\nAs for the remaining compliance terms, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and\n49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance\nwith the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.603(b) (Item 1), Respondent must modify its\nleak-survey procedures to ensure that leak-survey documents, including the daily\nleak-survey reports and highlighted grid maps, are accurate and complete after the\nsurveys are performed;\n2. With respect to the alleged violation of § 192.739(a)(3) (Item 3), PHMSA\nacknowledges the withdrawal of this violation, but asks Enstar to ensure that\nregulator station maintenance is performed appropriately and in a safe manner.\nFurther, PHMSA requests that Enstar revise its regulator maintenance procedures to\nensure records documenting regulator station maintenance are accurate and complete\nafter the maintenance activity is performed;\n3. With respect to the violation of § 191.11(a) (Item 4), Respondent must work with\nAPC and submit to PHMSA a supplemental 2014 Annual Report, as well as a 2014\nAnnual distribution report for APC. Enstar must also ensure that it accurately reports\nthe number of leaks on Federal lands and high-pressure distribution main mileage of\ntheir system;\n4. Please complete Items 1 through 3 within 90 days after receipt of this Final Order;\nand\n5. It is requested, (not mandated), that Enstar maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the\ntotal to Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration. It is requested that these costs","truncated":true,"body_characters":41747}