{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 52022008NOPV","title":"INTERIOR GAS UTILITY — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2022-07-18","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 193.2301, 193.2603(a), 193.2913.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52022008nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52022008nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52022008nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/52022008NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving INTERIOR GAS UTILITY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 193.2301,  193.2603(a),  193.2913. The case was opened on 2022-07-18 and is reported as closed as of 2024-01-29. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n52022008NOPV_Closure Letter_01292024_(20-191036).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52022008NOPV/52022008NOPV_Closure%20Letter_01292024_(20-191036).pdf\n\n52022008NOPV_Closure Letter_01292024_(20-191036)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52022008NOPV/52022008NOPV_Closure%20Letter_01292024_(20-191036)_text.pdf\n\n52022008NOPV_Final Order_06062023_(20-191036).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52022008NOPV/52022008NOPV_Final%20Order_06062023_(20-191036).pdf\n\n52022008NOPV_Final Order_06062023_(20-191036)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52022008NOPV/52022008NOPV_Final%20Order_06062023_(20-191036)_text.pdf\n\n52022008NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_08162022_(20-191036).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52022008NOPV/52022008NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_08162022_(20-191036).pdf\n\n52022008NOPV_PCO_07182022_(20-191036).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52022008NOPV/52022008NOPV_PCO_07182022_(20-191036).pdf\n\n52022008NOPV_PCO_07182022_(20-191036)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52022008NOPV/52022008NOPV_PCO_07182022_(20-191036)_text.pdf\n\n52022008NOPV_Final Order_06062023_(20-191036)_text.pdf\n\nJune 6, 2023\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: mrockwell@interiorgas.com\nMark Rockwell\nDirector of Operations\nInterior Gas Utility\n2525 Phillips Field Road\nFairbanks, Alaska 99709\nRe: CPF No. 5-2022-008-NOPV\nDear Mr. Rockwell:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Interior Gas Utility to comply with the\npipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as\ndetermined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of\nthe Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement of\nreceipt as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure (Final Order)\ncc: Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Daniel Britton, General Manager, Interior Gas Utility, dwbritton@interiorgas.com\nMr. Brendan Kern, Engineer, Interior Gas Utility, bkern@interiorgas.com\nCONFIRMATION OF 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)\nInterior Alaska Natural Gas Utility, ) CPF No. 5-2022-008-NOPV\nd/b/a Interior Gas Utility, )\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom September 28 through 30, November 17 through 19, 2020, and on January 12, 14 and 15,\n2021, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline\nsafety inspection of the facilities and records of Interior Gas Utility or (IGU or Respondent) in\nFairbanks and North Pole, Alaska. IGU operates a liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility that\nincludes one production site and three LNG storage sites. IGU’s LNG facility is connected to\n215 miles of gas distribution lines.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated July 18, 2022, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that IGU had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 193 and proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also included\nan additional two warning items pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, which warned the operator to\ncorrect the probable violations or face possible future enforcement action\nIGU responded to the Notice by letter dated August 16, 2022 (Response). IGU contested two of\nthe allegations and offered additional information in response to the Notice. Respondent did not\nrequest a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2301, which states:\n§ 193.2301 Scope.\nEach LNG facility constructed after March 31, 2000, must comply with\nrequirements of this part and of NFPA-59A-2001 (incorporated by\n\n\n\nreference, see § 193.2013). In the event of a conflict between this part and\nNFPA 59A, this part prevails.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2301 by failing to comply with the\nrequirements of section 4.4.2 of NFPA-59A-2001, which requires that “[s]torage containers shall\nhave all penetrations marked with the function of the penetration. Markings shall be visible if\nfrosting occurs.” Specifically, the Notice alleged that IGU did not have the requisite markings\non any storage tank penetrations at Storage Site #1.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. IGU provided additional information\nrelevant to the proposed compliance terms and to clarify that, due to the capacity of the storage\ntanks at Storage Site #1, section 10.3.9 of NFPA-59A-2001 is the applicable section. However,\nIGU stated that section 10.3.9 contains a similar requirement to section 4.4.2. Chapter 10 of\nNFPA-59A-2001 applies to Storage Site #1 because it has an aggregate storage capacity of\n90,000 gallons.1 Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2301 by failing to comply with section 10.3.9 of NFPA-59A-2001.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2301, which states:\n§ 193.2301 Scope.\nEach LNG facility constructed after March 31, 2000, must comply with\nrequirements of this part and of NFPA-59A-2001 (incorporated by\nreference, see § 193.2013). In the event of a conflict between this part and\nNFPA 59A, this part prevails.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2301 by failing to comply with the\nrequirements of sections 6.1.1, 6.3.4, and 6.6.3 of NFPA-59A-2001. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that IGU failed to comply with several sections of ASME B31.3, which is incorporated\nby reference into section 6.1.1 of NFPA-59A-2001. These sections include requirements related\nto weld markings, welding examinations, and welding process specifications.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. IGU provided additional information\nrelevant to the proposed compliance terms and to clarify that, due to the capacity of the storage\ntanks at Storage Site #4, section 10.11 of NFPA-59A-2001 is the applicable section. However,\nIGU stated that section 10.11 contains similar requirements to the sections cited in the Notice.\nChapter 10 of NFPA-59A-2001 applies to Storage Site #4 because it has two storage tanks with\nan aggregate storage capacity of 151,200 gallons. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2301 by failing to comply with the\nrequirements of section 10.11 of NFPA-59A-2001.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2301, which states:\n§ 193.2301 Scope.\nEach LNG facility constructed after March 31, 2000, must comply with\n1 Chapter 10 of NFPA-59A-2001 applies to the site if each LNG storage tank has a capacity of 100,000 gallons or\nless and the aggregate capacity is less than 280,000 gallons.\n\n\n\nrequirements of this part and of NFPA-59A-2001 (incorporated by\nreference, see § 193.2013). In the event of a conflict between this part and\nNFPA 59A, this part prevails.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2301 by failing to comply with the\nrequirements of sections 6.6.1 and 6.6.2 of NFPA-59A-2001 and section 345.2.7 of ASME\nB31.3. Specifically, the Notice alleged that IGU failed to include one or more of the required\nparameters for numerous pressure test records.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. IGU provided additional information\nrelevant to the proposed compliance terms and compliance deadline, and to clarify that, due to\nthe capacity of the storage tanks at Storage Site #4, section 10.11 of NFPA-59A-2001 is the\napplicable section. However, IGU stated that section 10.11 contains similar requirements to the\nsections cited in the Notice. Chapter 10 of NFPA-59A-2001 applies to Storage Site #4 because it\nhas two storage tanks with an aggregate storage capacity of 151,200 gallons. Accordingly, based\nupon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2301 by\nfailing to comply with the requirements of section 10.11 of NFPA-59A-2001 and section 345.2.7\nof ASME B31.3.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2301, which states:\n§ 193.2301 Scope.\nEach LNG facility constructed after March 31, 2000, must comply with\nrequirements of this part and of NFPA-59A-2001 (incorporated by\nreference, see § 193.2013). In the event of a conflict between this part and\nNFPA 59A, this part prevails.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2301 by failing to comply with the\nrequirements of section 7.1.1.1 of NFPA-59A-2001 which requires that “LNG containers be\nequipped with two independent liquid level gauging devices.” Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat, for the Storage Site #1 tank piping, the two liquid level measuring devices were not\nindependent because they were connected to the same sensing line penetration.\nIn its Response, IGU asserted its two liquid level gauges complied with section 10.12.2 of\nNFPA-59A-2001.2 Specifically, IGU asserted its liquid level gauges are independent because 1)\nthey are two independent devices (one is digital, and one is analog); 2) either device can be\nisolated for service while the other remains in service; 3) both can be serviced without taking the\ntank out of service; and 4) there is a 100 percent full trycock valve available for calibration if\nnecessary. IGU also argued that NFPA-59A-2001 requires independent liquid level gauges, but\nnot independent sensing lines.\nSection 10.12.2 of NFPA-59A-2001 requires independent liquid level devices to provide\nredundancy if one of the devices or sensing lines malfunctions or fails. With respect to IGU’s\n2 IGU provided additional information to clarify that, due to the size of the storage tanks at Storage Site #1, section\n10.12.2 of NFPA-59A-2001 is the applicable section. However, IGU stated that section 10.12.2 contains similar\nrequirements to section 7.1.1.1, as cited in the Notice. Chapter 10 of NFPA-59A-2001 applies to Storage Site #1\nbecause it has an aggregate storage capacity of 90,000 gallons.\n\n\n\nconfiguration, both devices are dependent on the same sensing line. If the sensing line fails, both\ndevices would also fail. In other words, because IGU’s two devices are subject to a single point\nof failure (the same sensing line), they are not independent and do not provide the required\nredundancy. The device and sensing line must be independent to comply with section 10.12.2 of\nNFPA-59A-2001. While section 10.12.2 of NFPA-59A-2001 does not explicitly require\nindependent sensing lines, liquid level devices can only be independent if they are not dependent\non the same sensing lines (i.e., the entire instrumentation well must be independent) because they\nwould be subject to a single point of failure.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 193.2301 by failing to comply with the requirements of section 10.12.2 of NFPA-59A-2001.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2301, which states:\n§ 193.2301 Scope.\nEach LNG facility constructed after March 31, 2000, must comply with\nrequirements of this part and of NFPA-59A-2001 (incorporated by\nreference, see § 193.2013). In the event of a conflict between this part and\nNFPA 59A, this part prevails.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2301 by failing to comply with the\nrequirements of section 10.12.4.3 of NFPA-59A-2001. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nTanks #2 and #3 at Storage Site #1 did not have locking devices installed on the stop valves,\ncontrary to section 10.12.4.3 of NFPA-59A-2001.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. IGU provided additional information\nrelevant to the proposed compliance terms. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.2301 by failing to comply with the\nrequirements of section 10.12.4.3 of NFPA-59A-2001.\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, 4, and 5 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. § 193.2301. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in\nthe transportation of liquefied natural gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required\nto comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601.\nWith regard to the violation of § 193.2301 (Item 3), Respondent requested an extension of time\nto complete this corrective measure if a system retest is required. Since IGU has not determined\nwhether a system retest would be necessary, I find that extending the compliance deadline at this\ntime is not warranted. If a system retest becomes necessary, IGU may submit a timely written\nrequest to the Director demonstrating good cause for an extension.\n\n\n\nFor the above reasons, the Compliance Order is not modified as set forth below.\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is\nordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations\napplicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 193.2301 (Item 1), Respondent must mark all\nLNG storage container penetrations with the function of the penetration within 90\ndays of receipt of the Final Order. Markings shall be visible if frosting occurs.\nProvide the Director revised operating procedures and photographic evidence of\nmarking all LNG storage container penetrations within 120 days of receipt of the\nFinal Order.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 193.2301 (Item 2), Respondent must perform a\n100 percent review of all welding documentation and associated nondestructive\ntesting (NDT) to determine, with a high degree of accuracy, that all welder IDs are\nconsistent with construction documentation and associated NDT. Provide the\nDirector with a report of items reviewed and corrections made within 120 days of\nreceipt of the Final Order.\n3. With respect to the violation of § 193.2301 (Item 3), Respondent must either\ncorrect the aforementioned records or retest the systems under question. Provide the\nDirector corrected testing records or completed retest records within 120 days of\nreceipt of the Final Order.\n4. With respect to the violation of § 193.2301 (Item 4), Respondent must ensure all\ntanks have independent liquid level gauging installed per NFPA-59A-2001 within\n180 days of receipt of the Final Order. Provide the Director revised operating\nprocedures and updated piping and instrument drawings (P&IDs) as well as\nphotographic evidence within 270 days of receipt of the Final Order.\n5. With respect to the violation of § 193.2301 (Item 5), Respondent must lock or seal\nsecure all stop valves present prior to relief valves within 30 days of receipt of the\nFinal Order. Provide the Director revised operating procedures and photographic\nevidence of locked/secured valves within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nPHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n\n\n\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (see 49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\neach day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 6 and 7, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 193, but identified\nthem as warning items pursuant to § 190.205. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 193.2603(a) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain each\ncomponent in service in a condition that is compatible with its operational or\nsafety purpose by repair, replacement, or other means; and\n49 C.F.R. § 193.2913 (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to provide\nprocedures for security monitoring by visual observation and records or schedules\nof security checks for Storage Site #1 and Storage Site #3.\nIGU requested withdrawal of Item 7 because it had procedures in place at the time of inspection\nand provided those records with its Response. Under § 190.205, PHMSA does not adjudicate\nwarning items to determine whether a probable violation occurred. If OPS finds a violation of\nthis provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future\nenforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. The written petition must be received no later than\n20 days after receipt of the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a\nstatement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The terms of\nthe order, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon\nrequest, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nJune 6, 2023\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n52022008NOPV_Closure Letter_01292024_(20-191036)_text.pdf\n\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: esudduth@interiorgas.com\nJanuary 29, 2024\nMs. Elena Sudduth\nGeneral Manager\nInterior Gas Utility\n2525 Phillips Field Road\nFairbanks, AK 99709\nCPF 5-2022-008-NOPV\nClosure Letter\nDear Ms. Sudduth:\nOn January 12, 2021, a representative from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), pursuant to chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, conducted an on-\nsite pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Interior Gas Utility’s (IGU)\nliquified natural gas (LNG) facilities that included three LNG storage sites. As a result of the\ninspection, IGU was issued the referenced Notice of Probable Violation (NOPV) and Proposed\nCompliance Order (PCO) on July 18, 2022. PHMSA issued a Final Order on June 6, 2023\nupholding the findings of the NOPV and issuing the Compliance Order (CO) as proposed. IGU\nprovided letters to PHMSA in response to the NOPV on August 16, 2022 regarding NOPV\nwarning Items 6 and 7, August 25, 2023 regarding NOPV Item 5, September 25, 2023 regarding\nNOPV Items 1, 2, and 3, and December 1, 2023 regarding NOPV Item 4 (Responses).\nWe have reviewed the documentation IGU provided in its Responses, and have determined that\nIGU has complied with the terms of the CO. Accordingly, this case is now closed, and no\nfurther action is contemplated with respect to the matters involved in this case. Thank you for\nyour cooperation in this matter.\n\n\n\nSincerely,\nDustin Hubbard\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 M. Yeager (#20-191036)\nJim Rasmussen, IGU Operations Engineer (jrasmussen@interiorgas.com)","truncated":false,"body_characters":20764}