{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520200003W","title":"FAIRBANKS NATURAL GAS — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2020-02-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.1007(c), 192.287, 192.479(a), 192.481(a), 192.743(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520200003w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520200003w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520200003w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520200003W","body":"Warning Letter involving FAIRBANKS NATURAL GAS. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.1007(c),  192.287,  192.479(a),  192.481(a),  192.743(a). The case was opened on 2020-02-28 and is reported as closed as of 2020-02-28. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520200003W_Warning Letter_02282020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520200003W/520200003W_Warning%20Letter_02282020.pdf\n\n520200003W_Warning Letter_02282020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520200003W/520200003W_Warning%20Letter_02282020_text.pdf\n\n520200003W_Warning Letter_02282020_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nFebruary 28, 2020\nMr. Daniel Britton\nPresident\nFairbanks Natural Gas, LLC\n3408 International Way\nFairbanks, Alaska 99701\nCPF 5-2020-0003W\nDear Mr. Britton:\nOn May 6 through 10 and June 24 through 27, 2019, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United\nStates Code (U.S.C.), inspected your natural gas distribution system in Fairbanks, Alaska.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items\ninspected and the probable violations are:\n1. § 192.287 Plastic pipe: Inspection of joints.\nNo person may carry out the inspection of joints in plastic pipes required by §§\n192.273(c) and 192.285(b) unless that person has been qualified by appropriate\ntraining or experience in evaluating the acceptability of plastic pipe joints made\nunder the applicable joining procedure.\n\n\n\nFairbanks Natural Gas (FNG) failed to provide records documenting any operator was\nqualified as a joint inspector. FNG personnel stated that they did not have a person qualified\nas a joint inspector.\n2. § 192.479 Atmospheric corrosion control: General.\n(a) Each operator must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is\nexposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under paragraph (c) of this section.\nSome piping and valves at meter sets and service regulators lacked coating as required by the\ncited regulation.\nFNG Standard Operating Procedure 7205 Corrosion Control stated under section titled\nMonitoring, subsection titled Distribution Facilities, “…FNG distribution facilities and the\nabove ground meter set network is protected from atmospheric corrosion, such as by paint...”.\nField observations determined that much of the piping to and within meter and regulator sets\nwas unpainted, and demonstrated visible surface corrosion. Photographic evidence of surface\ncorrosion on FNG aboveground piping was taken at the meter set and regulator serving Pizza\nHut at 89 College Road, as well as several meter sets and regulators serving businesses in the\nmalls located at 357-421 Merhar Avenue.\n3. § 192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is\nexposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:\nIf the pipeline is\nlocated:\nThen the frequency of inspection is:\nOnshore At least once every 3 calendar years, but with\nintervals not exceeding 39 months\nOffshore At least once each calendar year, but with intervals\nnot exceeding 15 months\nFNG failed to conduct atmospheric corrosion inspections of aboveground piping at their meter\nsets and service regulators, and as a result, did not provide any documentation of atmospheric\ncorrosion inspections.\n4. § 192.743 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Capacity of relief devices.\n(a) Pressure relief devices at pressure limiting stations and pressure regulating\nstations must have sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to which they are\nconnected. Except as provided in §192.739(b), the capacity must be consistent\n2\n\n\n\nwith the pressure limits of §192.201(a). This capacity must be determined at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, by testing\nthe devices in place or by review and calculations.\nFNG failed to demonstrate their pressure relief devices had sufficient capacity to protect their\ndistribution facilities to which they were connected. FNG failed to provide any documentation\nof testing the devices or review by calculations annually as required by § 192.743.\n5. § 192.1007 What are the required elements of an integrity management plan?\nA written integrity management plan must contain procedures for developing and\nimplementing the following elements:\n(a) …\n(c) Evaluate and rank risk. An operator must evaluate the risks associated with its\ndistribution pipeline. In this evaluation, the operator must determine the relative\nimportance of each threat and estimate and rank the risks posed to its pipeline.\nThis evaluation must consider each applicable current and potential threat, the\nlikelihood of failure associated with each threat, and the potential consequences of\nsuch a failure. An operator may subdivide its pipeline into regions with similar\ncharacteristics (e.g., contiguous areas within a distribution pipeline consisting of\nmains, services and other appurtenances; areas with common materials or\nenvironmental factors), and for which similar actions likely would be effective in\nreducing risk.\nFNG did not complete any meaningful evaluation of the Simple, Handy, Risk-based Integrity\nManagement Plan (SHRIMP) assessment results and, consequently, the risk rank results did\nnot accurately reflect the threats to their system. The SHRIMP selected the threat \"Other\nOutside Forces\" as the highest ranked risk to FNG's distribution system. SHRIMP described\nthis threat as: \"Above ground facilities are being hit by vehicles. Below ground facilities have\nbeen damaged due to heavy vehicles driving along or over the facility location.\" FNG\naccepted this result as the top-rated threat. During the inspection, FNG stated that their system\nhasn't had any leaks caused by the threat \"Other Outside Forces\". FNG stated that incorrect\ndata may have caused ranking of \"Other Outside Forces\" to be ranked as the number one threat\nof their system.\nMost damage is caused by Excavation Damage - Third Party Damages, which was ranked\nthird. The threat \"Material, Weld or Joint Failure due to workmanship defects\" was ranked as\nthe second highest risk. FNG stated the \"Material, Weld or Joint Failure due to workmanship\ndefects\" may have been ranked high, from many welds failing during a pressure test. FNG\nshould evaluate if this data should have been included in the SHRIMP, since these pressure\ntest weld failures were not leaks in their distribution system.\n3\n\n\n\nFNG accepted these ranking results that did not accurately reflect the risks faced by the\nsystem.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for a\nrelated series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and before\nJuly 31, 2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day, with a\nmaximum penalty not to exceed $2,132,679. For violation occurring on or after November 2,\n2015 and before November 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per\nviolation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring\nprior to November 2, 2015, the maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per\nday, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. We\nhave reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case, and have\ndecided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this\ntime. We advise you to correct the items identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in\nFairbanks Natural Gas, LLC being subject to additional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer\nto CPF 5-2020-0003W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this\nenforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion\nof your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along\nwith the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with\nthe portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why\nyou believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C.\n552(b).\nSincerely,\nDustin Hubbard\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 G. St. Pierre (#162682)\nMark Rockwell, Director of Operations, Fairbanks Natural Gas (via email)\nChris Gillespie, Chief of Engineering, Fairbanks Natural Gas (via email)\n4","truncated":false,"body_characters":8977}