{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220120001W","title":"FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES CO — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-01-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.455(a), 192.721, 192.739(a)(3), 192.743, 192.747(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220120001w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220120001w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220120001w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220120001W","body":"Warning Letter involving FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.455(a),  192.721,  192.739(a)(3),  192.743,  192.747(a). The case was opened on 2012-01-03 and is reported as closed as of 2012-01-03. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220120001W_warning letter_01032012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220120001W/220120001W_warning%20letter_01032012.pdf\n\n220120001W_warning letter_01032012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220120001W/220120001W_warning%20letter_01032012_text.pdf\n\n220120001W_warning letter_01032012_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJanuary 3, 2012\nKevin Webber\nVice President of Business Development and Operations\nFlorida Public Utilities\n401 S Dixie Hwy\nWest Palm Beach, FL 33401-5807\nCPF 2-2012-0001W\nDear Mr. Webber:\nOn October 20 and 21, 2011, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) inspected the Florida Public Utilities (FPU) records in Inglis,\nFlorida, and its pipeline facilities located in Alachua, Citrus, and Marion counties in Florida,\npursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that FPU has committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and\nthe probable violations are:\n1. §192.455 External corrosion control: Buried or submerged pipelines installed after\nJuly 31, 1971.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (f) of this section, each buried or\nsubmerged pipeline installed after July 31, 1971, must be protected against external\ncorrosion, including the following:\n(1) It must have an external protective coating meeting the requirements of §192.461.\n(2) It must have a cathodic protection system designed to protect the pipeline in\naccordance with this subpart, installed and placed in operation within 1 year after\ncompletion of construction.\n\n\n\nFPU did not protect buried portions of its pipeline system against external corrosion with\na cathodic protection system designed to protect the pipeline in accordance with this\nsubpart, installed and placed in operation within one year after completion of construction.\nDuring the field inspection, the PHMSA inspector identified sections of buried metal pipe\nthat were not under cathodic protection. At Lakeside, buried pipe without cathodic\nprotection was discovered at the meter set between 103 and 104 Windmill Drive. At\nNewtown, an unprotected buried pipe was discovered between the LP tank and the\nregulator station.\n2. § 192.721 Distribution systems: Patrolling.\n(a) The frequency of patrolling mains must be determined by the severity of the\nconditions which could cause failure or leakage, and the consequent hazards to\npublic safety.\n(b) Mains in places or on structures where anticipated physical movement or\nexternal loading could cause failure or leakage must be patrolled—\n(1) In business districts, at intervals not exceeding 4½ months, but at least four times\neach calendar year; and\n(2) Outside business districts, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at least twice\neach calendar year.\nFPU did not patrol its mains outside business districts at intervals not exceeding 7½\nmonths, but at least twice each calendar year.\nFPU records for Newberry Oaks, reviewed during the inspection, showed that patrols\nwere completed on April 16, 2009 and January 18, 2011. There were no 2010 patrolling\nrecords.\n3. § 192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and testing.\n(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs), and pressure\nregulating station and its equipment must be subjected at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year, to inspections and tests to determine\nthat it is—\n... (3) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, set to control or relieve at\nthe correct pressure consistent with the pressure limits of §192.201(a);\nFPU did not conduct lockup tests to determine that its regulators were set to control at the\ncorrect pressure.\nRecords reviewed during the inspection, corroborated by operator statements, revealed\nthat the operator was not verifying regulator lockup during its inspections of its pressure\nregulating stations at Lakeside, Canterbury, Juliette Falls, Newberry Oaks, and Newtown.\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 with\nthe pressure limits of §192.201(a). This capacity must be determined at intervals not2\n\n\n\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, by testing the devices in\nplace or by review and calculations.\n(b) If review and calculations are used to determine if a device has sufficient\ncapacity, the calculated capacity must be compared with the rated or experimentally\ndetermined relieving capacity of the device for the conditions under which it\noperates. After the initial calculations, subsequent calculations need not be made if\nthe annual review documents that parameters have not changed to cause the rated or\nexperimentally determined relieving capacity to be insufficient.\n(c) If a relief device is of insufficient capacity, a new or additional device must be\ninstalled to provide the capacity required by paragraph (a) of this section.\nFPU did not determine the capacity of its relief valves at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year, by testing the devices in place or by review\nand calculations.\nFPU records for Juliette Falls reviewed during the inspection, did not document that it\ndetermined the capacity of its vaporizer relief valves by testing the devices in place or by\nreview and calculations. Moreover, during its annual review, the operator did not\ndocument that that parameters have not changed to cause the rated or experimentally\ndetermined relieving capacity to be insufficient.\n5. § 192.747 Valve maintenance: Distribution systems.\n(a) Each valve, the use of which may be necessary for the safe operation of a\ndistribution system, must be checked and serviced at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year.\nFPU did not check and service each valve which may be necessary for the safe operation\nof its pipeline distribution system at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once\neach calendar year.\nFPU records reviewed during the inspection showed that valve #1 at Stratford Estates was\nlast inspected on May 6, 2010. By not inspecting valve #1 by August 6, 2011, the\noperator exceeded the 15 month interval.\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of\n$1,000,000 for any related series of violations. We have reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documents involved in this case, and have decided not to conduct additional\nenforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to correct\nthe item(s) identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in FPU being subject to\nadditional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer\nto CPF 2-2012-0001W. 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\nportion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b),\nalong with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document\n3\n\n\n\nwith the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of\nwhy you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C.\n552(b).\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\ncc: Mike McCarty\nSafety and Training Manager\nFlorida Public Utilities\n1015 6th Street NW\nWinter Haven, FL 33881-4018\n4","truncated":false,"body_characters":8353}