{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120136001W","title":"DELAWARE STORAGE AND PIPELINE COMPANY — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-07-09","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 195.440(a), 195.440(b), 195.440(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120136001w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120136001w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120136001w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120136001W","body":"Warning Letter involving DELAWARE STORAGE AND PIPELINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.440(a),  195.440(b),  195.440(c). The case was opened on 2013-07-09 and is reported as closed as of 2013-07-09. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120136001W_Warning Letter_07092012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120136001W/120136001W_Warning%20Letter_07092012_text.pdf\n\n120136001W_Warning Letter_07092013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120136001W/120136001W_Warning%20Letter_07092013.pdf\n\n120136001W_Warning Letter_07092012_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department Of Transportation Pipeline and 609.989.2171\nHazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103\nWest Trenton, NJ 08628\nWARNING LETTER\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS MAIL\nJuly 09, 2013\nCharles Denault, President\nDelaware Storage & Pipeline Company\n400 Amherst Street, Suite 405\nNashua, NH 03063\nCPF 1-2013-6001W\nDear Mr. Denault:\nFrom December 6 to December 8, 2011, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States\nCode inspected Delaware Storage and Pipeline Company’s (DSPC) Public Awareness Program, Public\nAwareness Program for Delaware Storage & Pipeline Company, Revised November 10, 2009 (Public\nAwareness Program for DSPC) and materials in Little Creek, Delaware.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety\nRegulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violations are:\n1. §195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API)\nRecommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nDSPC failed to develop a written continuing public education program that followed the guidance provided\nin API RP 1162 Section 4 Message Content. Specifically, DSPC did not have a documented process for\nproviding programs in both English and in other languages commonly used by significant concentration of\nnon-English speaking population along the pipeline.\nPursuant to API RP 1162 Section 4, “communications materials should be provided in language(s) spoken by\na significant portion of the intended audience.” The Public Awareness Program for DSPC had no\ninformation on what data would be evaluated to make the determination whether or not the program should\nbe provided in both English and other languages, the frequency of evaluation, and defining what the operator\ndeems “significant number and concentration.”\n\n\n\n1-2013-6001W\n2. §195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API)\nRecommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nDSPC failed to develop a written continuing public education program that followed the guidance provided\nin API RP 1162 Section 4.1 Pipeline Purpose and Reliability.\nPursuant to API RP 1162 Section 4.1, “[o]perators should consider providing a general explanation of the\npurpose of the pipeline and/or facilities and the reliability of pipelines meet the energy needs of the region. . .\n.” The Public Awareness Program for DSPC (including materials that were sent to stakeholders) did not\ncontain a general explanation of the purpose of the pipeline and/ or facilities and the reliability of pipelines to\nmeet the energy needs of the region it is in.\n3. §195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API)\nRecommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nDSPC failed to develop a written continuing public education program that followed the guidance provided\nin API RP 1162 Section 4.2 Hazard Awareness and Prevention Measures.\nPursuant to API RP 1162 Section 4.2,\n“[o]perators should provide a very broad overview of potential\nhazards, their potential consequences and the measures undertaken by the operator to prevent or mitigate the\nrisks from pipeline. . . .” The Public Awareness Program for DSPC (including materials that were sent to the\naffected public and excavators stakeholders) did not contain potential hazards, its potential consequences and\nthe measures undertaken by the operator to prevent or mitigate the risks from pipelines information.\n4. §195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API)\nRecommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nDSPC failed to develop a written continuing public education program that followed the guidance provided\nin API RP 1162 Section 4.3.4 Liaison with Emergency Officials.\nPursuant to API RP 1162 Section 4.3.4, the message content should have “information that describes the\nongoing relationship between the operator and local emergency response officials to help prevent incidents\nand assure preparedness for emergencies.” The Public Awareness Program for DSPC (including material\nsent to the affected public and excavators stakeholders) did not describe an ongoing relationship between the\noperator and local emergency response officials.\n5. §195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API)\nRecommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nDSPC failed to develop a written continuing public education program that followed the guidance provided\nin API RP 1162 Section 4.9 Right-of-Way (ROW) Encroachment Prevention.\nPursuant to API RP 1162 Section 4.9, “[p]ipeline operators should communicate that encroachments upon\nthe pipeline ROW inhibit the operator’s ability to respond to pipeline emergencies, eliminate third-party\n120136001W_WL_07092013 Page 2 of 5\n\n\n\n1-2013-6001W\ndamage, provide ROW surveillance, perform routine maintenance, and perform required federal/state\ninspections. . .\n” The Public Awareness Program for DSPC (including materials that were sent to\nstakeholders) did not communicate information regarding ROW encroachment.\n6. §195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API)\nRecommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nDSPC failed to develop a written continuing public education program that followed the guidance provided\nin API RP 1162 Section 4.10 Pipeline Maintenance Construction Activities.\nPursuant to API RP 1162 Section 4.10, “[p]ipeline maintenance-related construction activities should be\ncommunicated to the audience affected by the specific activity in a timely manner appropriate to the nature\nand extent of the activity.” The Public Awareness Program for DSPC did not contain procedures for\ncommunicating any pipeline construction activities to any stakeholders.\n7. §195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API)\nRecommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nDSPC failed to develop a written continuing public education program that followed the guidance provided\nin API RP 1162 Section 4.11 Security.\nPursuant to API RP Section 4.11, “[w]here applicable and in accordance with the national Homeland\nSecurity efforts, pipeline operators should communicate an overview pertaining to security of their pipelines\nand related facilities.” The Public Awareness Program for DSPC (including materials that were sent to\nstakeholders) did not contain information pertaining to security of its pipelines and related facilities.\n8. §195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API)\nRecommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nDSPC failed to develop a written continuing public education program that followed the guidance provided\nin API RP 1162 Sections 7.2 Program Recordkeeping.\nPursuant to API RP 1162 Section 7.2 (c), an operator must keep records of all program evaluations, including\ncurrent results, follow-up actions and expected results. The Public Awareness Program for DSPC did not\naddress this requirement.\n9. §195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API)\nRecommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nDSPC failed to develop a written continuing public education program that followed the guidance in API RP\n1162 Sections 8.4 Measuring Program Effectiveness.\nAPI RP 1162 Section 8.4 identifies four measures that an operator should evaluate for effectiveness for the\nfour intended stakeholder audience (affected public, emergency responders, public officials, and excavators).\n120136001W_WL_07092013 Page 3 of 5\n\n\n\n1-2013-6001W\nAccording to the Public Awareness Program for DSPC, “[a] survey has been designed to evaluate the\neffectiveness of the Program message delivery materials and methods for the affected public stakeholder\naudience.” (emphasis added) DSPC did not have procedures for evaluating the effectiveness of its program\nfor emergency responders, public officials, and excavators.\n10. §195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API)\nRecommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nDSPC failed to implement Section 11.3.1 Evaluation of Survey Responses for Affected Public Stakeholder of\nits written continuing public education program.\nSection 11.3.1 Evaluation of Survey Responses for Affected Public Stakeholder describes a scoring system\nand evaluation process for the answers/responses for affected public survey. However, DSPC could not\nproduce any records that demonstrated that it scored and evaluated the answer/responses from the affected\npublic survey.\n11. §195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) . . .\n(b) The operator's program must follow the general program recommendations of API RP\n1162 and assess the unique attributes and characteristics of the operator's pipeline and\nfacilities.\nDSPC’s Public Awareness Program for DSPC failed to follow API RP 1162 Section 4.6.1 Transmission\nPipeline Markers and assess the unique attributes and characteristic of the its pipeline and facilities.\nAPI RP 1162 Section 4.6.1 states that “[t]he operator’s awareness communications should include\ninformation about what pipeline markers look like. . . .” API RP 1162 Section 4.6.1 refers to Appendix C for\nadditional details. In Appendix C of API RP 1162, under C.6.1 Transmission Pipeline Markers, it states that\nthe “[p]ublic awareness materials should include illustrations and descriptions of pipeline markers used by\nthe operator and the information that the markers contain.” (emphasis added) The Public Awareness\nProgram for DSPC (including materials that were provided to stakeholders) illustrated generic pipeline\nmarkers, which was not a representation of DSPC’s pipeline markers.\n12. §195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) . . .\n(c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations, including baseline and\nsupplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless the operator provides justification in its\nprogram or procedural manual as to why compliance with all or certain provisions of the\nrecommended practice is not practicable and not necessary for safety.\nDSPC failed to follow the general program recommendation of Section 7.3 Record Retention. Specifically,\nDSPC did not retain records of stakeholder audiences with whom it communicated and its program\nevaluation for a minimum of five (5) years.\nPursuant to API RP 1162 Section 7.3, records of stakeholder audiences with whom it has communicated and\nprogram evaluation should be retained for a minimum of five (5) years. However, DSPC was unable\nproduce those records prior to 2008.\n120136001W_WL_07092013 Page 4 of 5\n\n\n\n1-2013-6001W\n13. §195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) . . .\n(c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations, including baseline and\nsupplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless the operator provides justification in its\nprogram or procedural manual as to why compliance with all or certain provisions of the\nrecommended practice is not practicable and not necessary for safety.\nDSPC failed to follow the general program recommendation, including baseline and supplemental\nrequirement of API RP 1162 Section 8.4 Measuring Program Effectiveness because it did not conduct an\neffectiveness evaluation for the emergency responders, public officials, and excavators.\nAPI RP 1162 Section 8.4 identifies four measures that an operator should evaluate for effectiveness for the\nfour intended stakeholder audience (affected public, emergency responders, public officials, and excavators).\nAt the time of this inspection, DSPC was unable to produce any documentation or evidence to show that it\nconducted an effectiveness evaluation for the emergency responders, public officials, and excavators.\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per\nviolation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. For\nviolations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation\nper day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations. We have\nreviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case, and have decided not to conduct\nadditional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to correct the\nitems identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in DSPC being subject to additional enforcement\naction.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, please address your correspondence to: Byron Coy,\nPE, Director, PHMSA Eastern Region, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103, W. Trenton, NJ 08628 and please\nrefer to CPF 1-2013-6001W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action\nis subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment\nredacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment\nunder 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nSincerely,\nByron E. Coy, PE\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n120136001W_WL_07092013 Page 5 of 5\n\n120136001W_Warning Letter_07092013.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\n820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103\nOf Transportation\nPipeline and\nWest Trenton, NJ 08628\nSafety Administration\nHazardous Materials\n609-989.2171\nWARNING LETTER\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS MAIL\nJuly 09, 2013\nCharles Denault, President\nDelaware Storage & Pipeline Company\n400 Amherst Street, Suite 405\nNashua, NH 03063\nCPF 1-2013-6001W\nDear Mr. Denault:\nFrom December 6 to December 8, 2011, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States\nCode inspected Delaware Storage and Pipeline Company's (DSPC) Public Awareness Program, Public\nAwareness Program for Delaware Storage & Pipeline Company, Revised November 10, 2009 (Public\nAwareness Program for DSPC) and materials in Little Creek, Delaware.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety\nRegulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violations are:\n1.\n$195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API)\nRecommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nin API RP 1162 Section 4 Message Content. Specifically, DSPC did not have a documented process for\nDSPC failed to develop a written continuing public education program that followed the guidance provided\nproviding programs in both English and in other languages commonly used by significant concentration of\nnon-English speaking population along the pipeline.\nPursuant to API RP 1162 Section 4, \"communications materials should be provided in languages) spoken by\ninformation on what data would be evaluated to make the determination whether or not the program should\na significant portion of the intended audience.\" The Public Awareness Program for DSPC had no\nbe provided in both English and other languages, the frequency of evaluation, and defining what the operator\ndeems significant number and concentration.\"\n\n\n\n1-2013-6001W\n2.\n$195.440 Public awareness.\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API)\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education\nRecommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nDSPC failed to develop a written continuing public education program that followed the guidance provided\nin API RP 1162 Section 4.1 Pipeline Purpose and Reliability.\nPursuant to API RP 1162 Section 4.1, \"lo]perators should consider providing a general explanation of the\nurpose of the pipeline and/or facilities and the reliability of pipelines meet the energy needs of the region..\n\" The Public Awareness Program for DSPC (including materials that were sent to stakeholders) did no\ncontain a general explanation of the purpose of the pipeline and/ or facilities and the reliability of pipelines to\nmeet the energy needs of the region it is in.\n3.\n§195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API)\nRecommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nDSPC failed to develop a written continuing public education program that followed the guidance provided\nin API RP 1162 Section 4.2 Hazard Awareness and Prevention Measures.\nPursuant to API RP 1162 Section 4.2, \"[o]perators should provide a very broad overview of potential\nrisks from pipeline....\" The Public Awareness Program for DSPC (including materials that were sent to the\nhazards, their potential consequences and the measures undertaken by the operator to prevent or mitigate the\naffected public and excavators stakeholders) did not contain potential hazards, its potential consequences and\nthe measures undertaken by the operator to prevent or mitigate the risks from pipelines information.\n4.\n$195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API)\nRecommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nDSPC failed to develop a written continuing public education program that followed the guidance provided\nin API RP 1162 Section 4.3.4 Liaison with Emergency Officials.\nPursuant to API RP 1162 Section 4.3.4, the message content should have information that describes the\nongoing relationship between the operator and local emergency response officials to help prevent incidents\nand assure preparedness for emergencies.\" The Public Awareness Program for DSPC (including material\nsent to the affected public and excavators stakeholders) did not describe an ongoing relationship between the\noperator and local emergency response officials.\n5.\n§195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API)\nRecommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nDSPC failed to develop a written continuing public education program that followed the guidance provided\nin API RP 1162 Section 4.9 Right-of-Way (ROW) Encroachment Prevention.\nPursuant to API RP 1162 Section 4.9, \"[p]ipeline operators should communicate that encroachments upon\nthe pipeline ROW inhibit the operator's ability to respond to pipeline emergencies, eliminate third-party\n120136001W_WL_07092013\nPage 2 of 5\n\n\n\n1-2013-6001W\ndamage, provide ROW surveillance, perform routine maintenance, and perform required federal/state\ninspections.. \"\nstakeholders) did not communicate information regarding ROW encroachment.\nThe Public Awareness Program for DSPC (including materials that were sent to\n6.\n$195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education\nRecommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API)\nin API RP 1162 Section 4.10 Pipeline Maintenance Construction Activities.\nDSPC failed to develop a written continuing public education program that followed the guidance provided\nPursuant to API RP 1162 Section 4.10, \"[plipeline maintenance-related construction activities should be\ncommunicated to the audience affected by the specific activity in a timely manner appropriate to the nature\ncommunicating any pipeline construction activities to any stakeholders.\nand extent of the activity.\" The Public Awareness Program for DSPC did not contain procedures for\n§195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API)\nRecommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nin API RP 1162 Section 4.11 Security.\nDSPC failed to develop a written continuing public education program that followed the guidance provided\nPursuant to API RP Section 4.11, \"[where applicable and in accordance with the national Homeland\nand related facilities.\" The Public Awareness Program for DSPC (including materials that were sent to\nSecurity efforts, pipeline operators should communicate an overview pertaining to security of their pipelines\nstakeholders) did not contain information pertaining to security of its pipelines and related facilities.\n8.\n§195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API)\nRecommended Practice (R) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nin API RP 1162 Sections 7.2 Program Recordkeeping.\nDSPC failed to develop a written continuing public education program that followed the guidance provided\nPursuant to API RP 1162 Section 7.2 (c), an operator must keep records of all program evaluations, including\ncurrent results, follow-up actions and expected results. The Public Awareness Program for DSPC did not\naddress this requirement.\n$195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API)\nRecommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nDSPC failed to develop a written continuing public education program that followed the guidance in API RP\n1162 Sections 8.4 Measuring Program Effectiveness.\nAPI RP 1162 Section 8.4 identifies four measures that an operator should evaluate for effectiveness for the\nfour intended stakeholder audience (affected public, emergency responders, public officials, and excavators).\n120136001W_WL_07092013\nPage 3 of 5\n\n\n\n1-2013-6001W\nAccording to the Public Awareness Program for DSPC, \"[a] survey has been designed to evaluate the\neffectiveness of the Program message delivery materials and methods for the affected public stakeholder\naudience.\" (emphasis added) DSPC did not have procedures for evaluating the effectiveness of its program\nfor emergency responders, public officials, and excavators.\n10.\n§195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public education\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API)\nRecommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nits written continuing public education program.\nDSPC failed to implement Section 11.3.1 Evaluation of Survey Responses for Affected Public Stakeholder of\nSection 11.3.1 Evaluation of Survey Responses for Affected Public Stakeholder describes a scoring system\nand evaluation process for the answers/responses for affected public survey. However, DSPC could not\npublic survey.\nproduce any records that demonstrated that it scored and evaluated the answer/responses from the affected\n11.\n§195.440 Public awareness.\n(b) The operator's program must follow the general program recommendations of API RP\n(a) ...\nfacilities.\n1162 and assess the unique attributes and characteristics of the operator's pipeline and\nDSPC's Public Awareness Program for DSPC failed to follow API RP 1162 Section 4.6.1 Transmission\nPipeline Markers and assess the unique attributes and characteristic of the its pipeline and facilities.\nAPI RP 1162 Section 4.6.1 states that \"[t]he operator's awareness communications should include\ninformation about what pipeline markers look like...\" API RP 1162 Section 4.6.1 refers to Appendix C for\nadditional details. In Appendix C of API RP 1162, under C.6.1 Transmission Pipeline Markers, it states that\nthe \"[p]ublic awareness materials should include illustrations and descriptions of pipeline markers used by\nthe operator and the information that the markers contain.\" (emphasis added) The Public Awareness\nProgram for DSPC (including materials that were provided to stakeholders) illustrated generic pipeline\nmarkers, which was not a representation of DSPC's pipeline markers.\n12.\n$195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) ...\n(c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations, including baseline and\nsupplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless the operator provides justification in its\nrecommended practice is not practicable and not necessary for safety.\nprogram or procedural manual as to why compliance with all or certain provisions of the\nDSPC did not retain records of stakeholder audiences with whom it communicated and its program\nDSPC failed to follow the general program recommendation of Section 7.3 Record Retention. Specifically,\nevaluation for a minimum of five (5) years.\nPursuant to API RP 1162 Section 7.3, records of stakeholder audiences with whom it has communicated and\nprogram evaluation should be retained for a minimum of five (5) years. However, DSPC was unable\nproduce those records prior to 2008.\n120136001W_WL_07092013\nPage 4 of 5\n\n\n\n1-2013-6001W\n13.\n$195.440 Public awareness.\n(c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations, including baseline and\nsupplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless the operator provides justification in its\nprogram or procedural manual as to why compliance with all or certain provisions of the\nrecommended practice is not practicable and not necessary for safety.\nDSPC failed to follow the general\nrecommendation, including baseline and supplemental\nrequirement of API RP 1162 Section 8.4 Measuring Program Effectiveness because it did not conduct an\neffectiveness evaluation for the emergency responders, public officials, and excavators.\nAPI RP 1162 Section 8.4 identifies four measures that an operator should evaluate for effectiveness for the\nfour intended stakeholder audience (affected public, emergency responders, public officials, and excavators).\nAt the time of this inspection, DSPC was unable to produce any documentation or evidence to show that it\nconducted an effectiveness evaluation for the emergency responders, public officials, and excavators.\nUnder 49 United States Code,§ 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per\nviolations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation\nper day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations. We have\nreviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case, and have decided not to conduct\nadditional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to correct the\nitems identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in DSPC being subject to additional enforcement\naction.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, please address your correspondence to: Byron Coy,\nPE, Director, PHMSA Eastern Region, 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103, W. Trenton, NJ 08628 and please\nrefer to CPF 1-2013-6001W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action\nis subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment\nunder 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nredacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment\nSincerely,\nBye Coyr\nByron E. Coy, PE\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n120136001W_WL_07092013\nPage 5 of 5","truncated":false,"body_characters":30476}