{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 52023016NOPV","title":"NORGASCO INC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2023-03-24","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.285(a), 192.513(c), 192.625(a), 192.625(f), 192.743(a), 192.807(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52023016nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52023016nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52023016nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/52023016NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving NORGASCO INC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.285(a),  192.513(c),  192.625(a),  192.625(f),  192.743(a),  192.807(a). The case was opened on 2023-03-24 and is reported as closed as of 2024-10-01. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n52023016NOPV_Closure Letter_10012024_(21-207466).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023016NOPV/52023016NOPV_Closure%20Letter_10012024_(21-207466).pdf\n\n52023016NOPV_Closure Letter_10012024_(21-207466)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023016NOPV/52023016NOPV_Closure%20Letter_10012024_(21-207466)_text.pdf\n\n52023016NOPV_Final Order_12042023_(21-207466).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023016NOPV/52023016NOPV_Final%20Order_12042023_(21-207466).pdf\n\n52023016NOPV_Final Order_12042023_(21-207466)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023016NOPV/52023016NOPV_Final%20Order_12042023_(21-207466)_text.pdf\n\n52023016NOPV_PCO_03242023_(21-207466).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023016NOPV/52023016NOPV_PCO_03242023_(21-207466).pdf\n\n52023016NOPV_PCO_03242023_(21-207466)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023016NOPV/52023016NOPV_PCO_03242023_(21-207466)_text.pdf\n\n52023016NOPV_Closure Letter_10012024_(21-207466)_text.pdf\n\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: ray@norgasco.com\nOctober 1, 2024\nMr. Raymond Latchem\nPresident\nNorgasco, Inc.\n4341 B Street, Suite 306\nAnchorage, AK 99503\nCPF 5-2023-016-NOPV\nClosure Letter\nDear Mr. Latchem:\nOn December 4, 2023 the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Norgasco Inc., a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included\nCompliance Order requirements to take corrective actions on your pipeline. Based on our review\nof the documentation you submitted on April 21, 2023, August 31, 2023, August 28, 2024, and\nPHMSA observation of a pressure test on June 27, 2024, it has been determined that you have\ncomplied 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,\nDustin Hubbard\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 C. Lyon (#21-207466)\nBret Bartholomy, Norgasco - bret@norgasco.com\n\n52023016NOPV_Final Order_12042023_(21-207466)_text.pdf\n\nDecember 4, 2023\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: ray@norgasco.com\nRaymond Latchem\nPresident\nNorgasco, Inc.\n4341 B Street, Suite 306\nAnchorage, Alaska 99503\nRe: CPF No. 5-2023-016-NOPV\nDear Mr. Latchem:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws one or\nmore of the allegations of violation, makes other findings of violation and specifies actions that\nneed to be taken by Norgasco, Inc., to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the\nterms of the compliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director, Western\nRegion, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective\nupon the date of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt as provided under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Bret Bartholomy, Vice President of Operations, Norgasco, Inc., bret@norgasco.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____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nNorgasco, Inc., ) CPF No. 5-2023-016-NOPV\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom May 7 through May 11, 2022, and September 27 through September 30, 2022, pursuant to\n49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), inspected the facilities and records\nof Norgasco, Inc.’s (Norgasco or Respondent) natural gas distribution system in Deadhorse,\nAlaska. Respondent operates a natural gas distribution system serving approximately 160\nindustrial buildings in Deadhorse, Alaska.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated March 24, 2023, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that Norgasco had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192, and proposed\nordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also\nincluded an additional warning item pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, which warned the operator\nto correct the probable violation or face possible future enforcement action.\nNorgasco responded to the Notice by letter dated April 21, 2023 (Response). Respondent\ncontested some of the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and\nrequested that certain proposed compliance orders be withdrawn. Respondent did not request a\nhearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.513(c), which states:\n1 Norgasco, Inc. website, available at http://www.norgasco.com/contact.html (last accessed November 16, 2023).\n\n\n\n§ 192.513 Test requirements for plastic pipelines.\n(a) Each segment of a plastic pipeline must be tested in accordance\nwith this section.\n(b) The test procedure must insure discovery of all potentially\nhazardous leaks in the segment being tested.\n(c) The test pressure must be at least 150% of the maximum operating\npressure or 50 psi (345 kPa) gauge, whichever is greater. However, the\nmaximum test pressure may not be more than 2.5 times the pressure\ndetermined under § 192.121 at a temperature not less than the pipe\ntemperature during the test.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.513(c) by failing to pressure test\nthree service lines to the required test pressure. Specifically, the Notice alleged that during the\ninstallation of three service lines, Norgasco pressure tested the service lines, including the\nfittings that were electro-fused to the mains, to the operating pressure (70 psig) and not to the\nrequired test pressure (140 psig). The following construction records of Norgasco work orders\nand pressure test reports were reviewed: (1) Sag River Road & Stallion pad dated “Fall 2020”;\n(2) Sag River Road & Worley AOH pad dated “Fall 2020”; and (3) Pathfinder Hanger 131\nCarlile Pad on August 13, 2018. Each of these records showed that Norgasco pressure tested\nnew service lines to 70 psig instead of at least 1.5 times the maximum operating pressure\nrequired by § 192.513(c) and Norgasco’s P-38 Pressure Testing Distribution Mains and Service\nLines procedure.2\nIn its Response, Norgasco contested the allegation of violation and requested that it be\nwithdrawn. Norgasco argued that the pipe used for those service lines was pressure tested to the\nrequired test pressure prior to installation when the pipe arrived in a spool from the vendor, and\nthe Response provided records of the spool pressure tests. Norgasco suggested in its Response\nthat the pressure tests conducted on the pipe spools prior to installation satisfied the requirements\nof § 192.513(c), and that the “inspectors mistook the leak-check at line pressure for a new\ndistribution piping pressure test.”3 Norgasco asserted that pressure testing the service lines after\ninstallation in accordance with § 192.513(c) “is not practical or required.”4\nNorgasco suggested that pressure testing new plastic pipe spools to 1.5 times the maximum\noperating pressure when it arrived from the vendor satisfied the plastic pipeline testing\nrequirements in § 192.513(c). I disagree. Section 192.513(a) prescribes the test requirements for\nplastic pipelines to ensure discovery of all potentially hazardous leaks and requires “each\nsegment of a plastic pipeline” to be tested.5 As defined in § 192.3, “pipeline” and “pipe” are not\n2 Norgasco stated that it only tested the service lines to 70 psig because of the risk of blowing off an electrofusion\nfitting on an operating line.\n3 Response, at 1.\n4 Id.\n5 49 C.F.R. § 192.513(a)-(b).\n\n\n\ninterchangeable in Part 192.\n6 Had PHMSA meant to limit pressure testing requirements under\n§ 192.513 to spooled plastic “pipe,” it would have specifically done so. Instead, PHMSA\napplied § 192.513 testing requirements to the more expansive definition of “pipeline,” which\nincludes not only the spooled plastic pipe, but all other facilities through which gas moves in that\nsegment of pipeline.\n7\nAdditionally, PHMSA reviewed Norgasco’s P-38 Pressure Testing Distribution Mains and\nService Lines procedure. Respondent’s procedure required the leak and pressure testing of\nservice lines to be conducted after the pipe has been laid in the trench and before final tie to the\ngas-filled section, at a test pressure of 140 psig.8 Norgasco failed to follow its procedure by\npressuring testing spooled pipe prior to being laid in the trench. Norgasco also failed to pressure\ntest the distribution lines, once laid and before final tie to the gas-filled section, to 140 psig as\nrequired by its procedure.\nPrior to installation, Norgasco tested spooled pipe to at least 150 percent of the maximum\noperating pressure. However, once installed, Norgasco tested the leak integrity of the service\nlines to the operating pressure of 70 psig and not the test pressure required by § 192.513(c) and\nits procedure.9\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.513(c) by failing to pressure test three segments of plastic pipeline to at least 150 percent\nof the maximum operating pressure.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(a), which states:\n§ 192.625 Odorization of gas.\n(a) A combustible gas in a distribution line must contain a natural\nodorant or be odorized so that at a concentration in air of one-fifth of the\n6 See 49 C.F.R. § 192.3 (defining “pipe” as “any pipe or tubing used in the transportation of gas, including pipe-\ntype holders; and “pipeline” as “all parts of those physical facilities through which gas moves in transportation,\nincluding pipe, valves, and other appurtenance attached to pipe, compressor units, metering stations, regulator\nstations, delivery stations, holders, and fabricated assemblies.”).\n7 See e.g., 49 C.F.R. § 192.285(c) (prescribing requalification for any person qualified under this section “after any\nproduction joint is found unacceptable by testing under § 192.513.”) (emphasis added). See also Gas Piping\nTechnology Committee (GPTC) ANSI/GPTC Z380.1, Guide for Gas Transmission, Distribution, and Gathering\nPiping Systems [hereinafter GPTC Guide], Subpart J Test Requirements, discussing that the “joints in the plastic\npiping should be set, cured, or hardened before the test [under § 192.513] is initiated.” The GPTC Guide is not\nincorporated by reference in part 192, but PHMSA has referenced it in guidance and considered GPTC proposals in\ndeveloping the Part 192 requirements under § 192.513. See e.g., Regulatory Review: Administrative Practices,\nReporting Pipeline Incidents, Gas Pipeline Standards, and Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities Standards, 57 Fed. Reg.\n53015, 53087 (Nov. 6, 1992) (codified at 49 C.F.R. pt. 192). These uses exemplify the intent of § 192.513 to apply\n“pipeline” in its more expansive definition that includes all physical facilities attached to the pipe.\n8 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (March 16, 2023) (on file with PHMSA), at Exh. B-2, at\nPage 1.\n9 The regulatory test pressure is at least 135 psig (150 percent of Norgasco’s maximum allowable operating\npressure of 90 psig). The required test pressure in accordance with Norgasco’s procedure is 140 psig.\n\n\n\nlower explosive limit, the gas is readily detectable by a person with a normal\nsense of smell.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(a) by failing to odorize the\ndistribution line between Skid 1 (located approximately two miles north of Deadhorse, Alaska)\nand Skid 2 in Deadhorse, Alaska.\nIn its Response, Norgasco acknowledged that it treated the subject pipeline as a distribution line\nbut stated that it believed PHMSA was reviewing Norgasco’s justification for the alleged\nviolation based on a previous inspection in 2019. Norgasco asserted in its Response that it did\nnot see the need to odorize the distribution line between Skid 1 and Skid 2 and requested further\ndiscussion with PHMSA regarding changing the designation from distribution line to\ntransmission line.\nSection 192.625(a) requires odorization of a combustible gas in a distribution line. Norgasco\nfailed to odorize its natural gas distribution pipeline operating between Skid 1 and Skid 2 as\nrequired by § 192.625(a). Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(a) by failing to odorize a distribution line in its\npipeline system.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a), which states:\n§ 192.743 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Capacity of relief\ndevices.\n(a) Pressure relief devices at pressure limiting stations and pressure\nregulating stations must have sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to\nwhich they are connected. Except as provided in § 192.739(b), the capacity\nmust be consistent with the pressure limits of § 192.201(a). This capacity\nmust be determined at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once\neach calendar year, by testing the devices in place or by review and\ncalculations.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a) by failing to conduct a\nreview of its pressure relief device capacities for the pressure safety valves (PSVs) at Skid 1 and\nSkid 2 regulating stations each calendar year, at intervals not exceeding 15 months. Specifically,\nNorgasco was unable to provide PSV capacity calculations for the Skid 1 and Skid 2 regulating\nstations upon request.\nIn its Response, Norgasco explained that it was unable to locate the PSV capacity calculations at\nthe time of the inspection but had since located those records. Norgasco provided records of\ncapacity calculations for Skid 1 and Skid 2 relief devices completed in 2018. Respondent\nprovided further information explaining that it was unaware of the annual capacity\ndeterminations required by § 192.743(a). Norgasco provided a current review of the capacity\ncalculations for the relief devices protecting Skid 1 and Skid 2 regulating stations, except for the\nHilcorp PSV that protects Norgasco’s pipeline from the Hilcorp Flow Station 1 tie-in to Skid 1.\nNorgasco stated that it would ensure capacity determinations were conducted annually moving\nforward.\n\n\n\nBased on its Response and the records and additional information provided by Norgasco, Skid 1\nand Skid 2 pressure relief device capacity determinations were conducted in 2018, and then\nagain in 2023, with an approximate five-year gap between reviews. Accordingly, after\nconsidering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a) by failing\nto determine the capacity of relief devices protecting Skid 1 and Skid 2 regulating stations at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATIONS\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f), which states:\n§ 192.625 Odorization of gas.\n(a) ….\n(f) To assure the proper concentration of odorant in accordance with\nthis section, each operator must conduct periodic sampling of combustible\ngases using an instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in\nair at which the odor becomes readily detectable. Operators of master meter\nsystems may comply with this requirement by –\n(1) Receiving written verification from their gas source that the gas has\nthe proper concentration of odorant; and\n(2) Conducting periodic “sniff” tests at the extremities of the system to\nconfirm that the gas contains odorant.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f) by failing to follow the\nmanufacturer’s instructions while using the Heath Consultants Odorator Model #1, resulting in\nan inaccurate odorant level reading. Specifically, during an odorant test observed by PHMSA\ninspectors, Norgasco did not remove the Heath Consultants Odorator from the carrying case\nwhile conducting the test. The Notice alleged that the carrying case, with foam interior padding,\nwas not supplied by the manufacturer and was used by Norgasco to protect the instrument from\nfall damage and to keep it from freezing. The user manual for the odorator, page IV states:\n“WARNING: . . . DO NOT OBSTRUCT OR BLOCK THE INTAKE OR EXHAUST PORT.”10\nA PHMSA inspector contacted the manufacturer and confirmed that the odorator should be\nremoved from the case prior to conducting a “sniff” test.\nIn its Response, Norgasco clarified that the carrying case was supplied by the manufacturer and\nprovided a picture of the odorator in the carrying case with the label “HeathTech.”11 Norgasco\n10 Violation Report, at Exh. D-2, at Page IV.\n11 Response, at 19.\n\n\n\nargued that the odorator is only required to be removed from the carrying case during calibration\nand provided a copy of the relevant pages of the odorator instruction manual. However,\nNorgasco agreed to follow the proposed compliance terms based on the communication between\nPHMSA and the odorator manufacturer confirming that the odorator should be removed from its\ncarrying case prior to use and provided additional information in its Response describing actions\ntaken to require the odorator to be removed from its case prior to use, including revisions to\nNorgasco’s odorator procedure.\nThe odorator user manual excerpts provided by Norgasco in its Response do not resemble the\nuser manual included as an exhibit in the Violation Report.12 The user manual excerpts provided\nby Norgasco indicate that during calibration, the odorator intake and exhaust ports should not be\nblocked. The warning not to block the intake or exhaust port in the user manual included as an\nexhibit in the Violation Report is a general warning not specifically associated with calibration\nrequirements. PHMSA reviewed the revision to Norgasco’s odorator procedure, which now\nrequires the odorator to be removed from the carrying case before use. Norgasco provided a\npicture of the odorator carrying case with an updated label with the instruction to remove the\nodorator from its case prior to use.\n13\nIn a recommendation for final action submitted pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Director\nrecommended withdrawing the alleged violation of § 192.625(f). Based on Norgasco’s\nResponse and the provided updated procedure that includes removing the odorator prior to\nconducting a “sniff” test, I find Respondent is not in violation of § 192.625(f). Accordingly,\nafter considering all of the evidence, Item 4 and the corresponding compliance item are hereby\nwithdrawn.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.807(a), which states:\n§ 192.807 Recordkeeping.\nEach operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance with\nthis subpart.\n(a) Qualification records shall include:\n(1) Identification of qualified individual(s);\n(2) Identification of the covered tasks the individual is qualified to\nperform;\n(3) Date(s) of current qualification; and\n(4) Qualification method(s).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.807(a) by failing to maintain\nqualification records for each operator-qualified employee. Specifically, the existing training\nrecords did not document the qualification method (e.g., exam) in accordance with\n§ 192.807(a)(4).\n12 Compare Violation Report, at Exh. D-2, at Page IV with Response, at 20 – 22.\n13 Response, at 23.\n\n\n\nIn its Response, Norgasco provided additional information explaining that it uses EnergyU\ntraining from Midwest Energy Association for operator qualification and training and provided\nrecords of each operator’s training log with successfully completed exams.\nIn a recommendation for final action submitted pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Director\nrecommended withdrawing the alleged violation of § 192.807(a). Based on the foregoing, I find\nthat Respondent is not in violation of § 192.807(a). Accordingly, after considering all of the\nevidence, Item 6 and the corresponding compliance item are hereby withdrawn.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2, 3, and 5 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.513(c), 192.625(a), and 192.743(a), respectively. Under 49\nU.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601.\nAs discussed above, Items 4 and 6 have been withdrawn. Therefore, the compliance terms\nproposed in the Notice for those Items are not included in this Final Order.\nWith regard to the violation of § 192.513(c) (Item 2), Respondent argued the compliance terms\nshould be withdrawn. In its Response, Norgasco argued it was in compliance and did not\nprovide a separate argument for withdrawal or modification of the Compliance Order. For the\nreasons described above, the allegations of violation have not been withdrawn. Consequently,\nthe Compliance Order for this Item is not withdrawn or modified.14\nWith regard to the violation of § 192.625(a) (Item 3), Respondent argued that odorization\nbetween Skid 1 and Skid 2 is not required and proposed changing the designation of the service\nline from distribution line to transmission line in order to come into compliance. Since the\nProposed Compliance Order only requires Norgasco to submit a compliance plan to PHMSA for\nreview and approval, I find that withdrawing or modifying the proposed compliance terms based\non Respondent’s argument is not warranted.\nWith regard to the violation of § 192.743(a) (Item 5), Respondent did not contest the Proposed\nCompliance Order. In its Response, Norgasco provided pressure relief device capacity\ncalculations for Skid 1 and Skid 2 regulating stations dated October 10, 2018. Norgasco\nprovided additional information that included capacity calculation reviews for Skid 1 and Skid 2\nregulating stations dated June 19, 2023. The capacity calculations provided by Norgasco did not\ninclude the pressure relief device at the Hilcorp Flow Station 1 tie-in to Skid 1. Based on the\nforegoing, I find that withdrawing or modifying the proposed compliance terms at this time is not\nwarranted.\n14 With its Response, Norgasco provided additional information, agreeing to take the corrective actions detailed in\nthe Proposed Compliance Order, describing the intended procedure for conducting the testing, and requesting\nPHMSA approval.\n\n\n\nFor the above reasons, the Compliance Order is 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 § 192.513(c) (Item 2), Respondent must, within\n365 days of receipt of the Final Order, pressure test to 140 psig the three electrofusion\nfittings that were previously pressure tested to 70 psig, at Sag River Road and Stallion\npad, Sag River Road and Worley AOH pad, and Pathfinder hanger 131 Carlile pad.\nNorgasco must also pressure test the three service lines associated with these three\npads to 140 psig within 365 days of receipt of the Final Order. Additionally,\nNorgasco must notify PHMSA 30 days prior to conducting the pressure tests and\nsubmit documentation of completion of pressure testing to the Director within 365\ndays of receipt of the Final Order.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 192.625(a) (Item 3), Respondent must submit a\ncompliance plan to the Director for review and approval within 120 days of receipt of\nthe Final Order.\n3. With respect to the violation of § 192.743(a) (Item 5), Respondent must submit to\nthe Director documentation demonstrating that pressure relief devices at pressure\nlimiting stations and pressure regulating stations have sufficient capacity to protect\nthe facilities to which they are connected within 120 days of receipt of the Final\nOrder.\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.\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 ITEM\nWith respect to Item 1, the Notice alleged probable violation of Part 192, but identified it as a\nwarning item pursuant to § 190.205. The warning was for:\n\n\n\n49 C.F.R. § 192.285(a) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure that allowed a\nNorgasco employee to make multiple plastic piping joints on a main line\ndistribution pipeline without being qualified under the applicable joining\nprocedure.\nNorgasco requested withdrawal of Item 1 because the employee in question was a full-time staff\nengineer with a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering and was trained in high-\ndensity polyethylene (HDPE) fusion. In its Response, Norgasco provided additional information\nthat the employee’s training was documented in its Daily Journal. Under § 190.205, PHMSA\ndoes not adjudicate warning items to determine whether a probable violation occurred. If OPS\nfinds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to\nfuture enforcement 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.\nDecember 4, 2023\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":27992}