{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220140001","title":"FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2014-02-18","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.11(b), 192.465, 192.481, 192.605, 192.625(f), 192.625(f)(2), 192.707(a), 192.707(a)(2), 192.723, 192.723(b)(2), 192.739(a), 192.741(a), 192.743(a), 192.747.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220140001.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220140001.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220140001","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220140001","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.11(b),  192.465,  192.481,  192.605,  192.625(f),  192.625(f)(2),  192.707(a),  192.707(a)(2),  192.723,  192.723(b)(2),  192.739(a),  192.741(a),  192.743(a),  192.747. The case was opened on 2014-02-18 and is reported as closed as of 2015-02-09. Proposed civil penalty: $40,600. Assessed civil penalty: $40,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220140001_closure letter_02092015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220140001/220140001_closure%20letter_02092015.pdf\n\n220140001_closure letter_02092015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220140001/220140001_closure%20letter_02092015_text.pdf\n\n220140001_Final Order_10012014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220140001/220140001_Final%20Order_10012014.pdf\n\n220140001_Final Order_10012014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220140001/220140001_Final%20Order_10012014_text.pdf\n\n220140001_nopv_pcp_pco_02182014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220140001/220140001_nopv_pcp_pco_02182014.pdf\n\n220140001_nopv_pcp_pco_02182014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220140001/220140001_nopv_pcp_pco_02182014_text.pdf\n\n220140001_Operator Response_03122014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220140001/220140001_Operator%20Response_03122014.pdf\n\n220140001_Final Order_10012014_text.pdf\n\nOCTOBER 1, 2014\nMr. Jeffrey M. Householder\nPresident\nFlorida Public Utilities Company\n1015 6th St, NW\nWinter Haven, FL 33881\nRe: CPF No. 2-2014-0001\nDear Mr. Householder:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $40,600, issues warnings, and specifies actions that need to\nbe taken by Florida Public Utilities Company in order to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty\nhas been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director,\nSouthern Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified\nmail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Wayne T. Lemoi, Director, Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nMr. Michael McCarty, Safety, Compliance and Training Manager,\nFlorida Public Utilities Company, 1641 Worthington Road, Suite 220, West Palm\nBeach, FL 33409\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN 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 )\nFlorida Public Utilities, Co., ) CPF No. 2-2014-0001\na subsidiary of Chesapeake Utilities Corp. , )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n_________________________________________ )\nFINAL ORDER\nOn August 26-30, 2013, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of the Florida Public\nUtilities Company (FPUC or Respondent), a subsidiary of Chesapeake Utilities Corp. The\ninspection included liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) pipeline systems operated by Respondent in\nBrevard, Broward, and Palm Beach counties, Florida, and its records and procedures in West\nPalm Beach, Florida. FPUC is comprised of seven divisions, eight propane districts, and five\naffiliates, through which it provides natural gas, electricity, and propane gas to 118,000 persons\nwithin the State of Florida.\n1\nAs a result of the inspection, on February 18, 2014, the Director, Southern Region, OPS\n(Director), issued a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice) to Respondent. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that Respondent had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.11, 192.465, 192.481, 192.605,\n192.625, 192.707, 192.723, 192.739, 192.741, 192.743, and 192.747, and proposed assessing a\ncivil penalty of $40,600 for two of the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct six of the alleged violations and warned\nRespondent to take corrective measures with respect to seven of the alleged violations.\nFPUC replied to the Notice by letter dated March 12, 2014 (Response). Respondent did not\ncontest the allegations of violation. Respondent did provide information on the corrective\n1 See About FPU, Florida Public Utilities Company, http://www fpuc.com/about/ (last visited September 8, 2014);\nsee also FPU Fact Sheet, Florida Public Utilities Company, http://www.fpuc.com/about/corporate-fact-sheet/ (last\nvisited September 8, 2014); see also FPU Companies and Affiliates, http://www.fpuc.com/about/fpufamily/ (last\nvisited September 8, 2014).\n\n\n\n2\nactions it had taken and planned to take and requested that PHMSA consider a reduction in the\nproposed civil penalty. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right\nto one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Respondent did not contest the allegations that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192 as\nfollows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.11(b) which states:\n§ 192.11 Petroleum gas systems.\n(a) ….\n(b) Each pipeline system subject to this part that transports only\npetroleum gas or petroleum gas/air mixtures must meet the requirements\nof this part and of ANSI/NFPA 58 and 59.\nNFPA 58 § 6.7.4.5.\nThe point of discharge from the required pressure relief device on\nregulating equipment installed outside of buildings in fixed piping systems\nshall be located not less than 3ft. (1 m) horizontally away from any building\nopening below the level of such discharge, and not beneath any building\nunless this space is well ventilated to the outside and is not enclosed for\nmore than 50 percent of its perimeter.\nNFPA 58 § 6.7.4.6.\nThe point of discharge [of a regulator] shall also be located not less\nthan 5 ft. (1.5 m) in any direction away from any source of ignition,\nopenings into direct-vent (sealed combustion system) appliances, or\nmechanical ventilation air intakes.\nThe Notice alleged Respondent violated § 192.11(b) by operating a pressure relief device with its\npoint of discharge less than three feet from a crawlspace vent. The Notice also alleged\nRespondent violated § 192.11(b) by operating a regulator with points of discharge less than five\nfeet from sources of ignition. Specifically, the PHMSA inspector identified a pressure relief\ndevice with its point of discharge less than three feet from a crawlspace vent at 1024 Sebastian\nRoad on Respondent’s Barefoot Bay system. Additionally, the inspector found a regulator with a\npoint of discharge less than five feet from sources of ignition at the 1310 NW 55th Avenue\nlocation on its Lauderhill West system.\nRespondent did not contest these allegations. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the\nevidence, I find Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. 192.11(b) by operating a regulator with its point\nof discharge less than three feet from a crawlspace vent and operating a pressure relief device\nwith points of discharge less than five feet from sources of ignition at the specified locations.\n\n\n\n3\nItem 7: The Notice alleged 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\nmeter systems may comply with this requirement by -\n(1) Receiving written verification from their gas source that the\ngas has the proper concentration of odorant; and\n(2) Conducting periodic “sniff” tests at the extremities of the\nsystem to confirm that the gas contains odorant.\nThe Notice alleged Respondent violated § 192.625(f) by failing to assure the proper\nconcentration of an odorant in the air by conducting periodic sampling of combustible gases\nusing an instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in the air at which the odor\nbecomes readily detectable. Specifically, the Notice alleged that FPUC failed to perform these\nchecks during calendar years 2009 through 2013 on its Barefoot Bay, Caroma Lane, Casa Del\nSol, Lauderhill­East, Lauderhill-West, and Promenade at Inverarry systems. Additionally, low\nodorant readings were identified at 327 Kiwi St in Respondent’s Barefoot Bay system.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f) by failing to assure proper\nconcentration of an odorant in the air by conducting periodic sampling of combustible gases\nusing an instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in the air at which the odor\nbecomes readily detectable on the specified systems.\nItem 8: part:\nThe Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(a), which states in relevant\n§ 192.707 Line markers for mains and transmission lines.\n(a) Buried pipelines. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this\nsection, a line marker must be placed and maintained as close as\npractical over each buried main and transmission line:\n(1) At each crossing of a public road and railroad; and\n(2) Wherever necessary to identify the location of the transmission\nline or main to reduce the possibility of damage or interference.\nThe Notice alleged Respondent violated § 192.707(a) by failing to place and maintain line\nmarkers as close as practical over each buried main at each crossing of a public road.\nSpecifically, the PHMSA inspector found several locations without line markers where mains\ncrossed public roads on the Barefoot Bay, Lauderhill-East, and Lauderhill-West systems.\nAdditionally, the inspector identified line markers on Respondent’s Lauderhill-East system\nhaving impaired readability due to fading.\n\n\n\n4\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(a) by failing to place line\nmarkers where mains crossed public roads at the Barefoot Bay, Lauderhill-East, and Lauderhill-\nWest system and by having line markers on Respondent’s Lauderhill-East system with impaired\nreadability due to fading.\nItem 11: The Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and testing.\n(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs),\nand pressure regulating station and its equipment must be subjected at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year,\nto inspections and tests to determine that it is -\n(1) In good mechanical condition;\n(2) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of\noperation for the service in which it is employed;\n(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, set to\ncontrol or relieve at the correct pressure consistent with the pressure limits\nof §192.201(a); and\n(4) Properly installed and protected from dirt, liquids, or other\nconditions that might prevent proper operation.\nThe Notice alleged Respondent violated § 192.739(a) by failing to inspect and test its pressure\nlimiting and regulating stations at least once each calendar year, at intervals not exceeding fifteen\nmonths. Specifically, the Notice alleged Respondent failed to conduct these inspections for the\nfollowing systems:\na) Caroma system, for calendar years 2010, 2011, 2012;\nb) Promenade at Inverrary system, for calendar years 2010, 2011, 2012;\nc) Casa Del Sol system, for calendar years 2010, 2011, 2012; and\nd) Barefoot Bay system, for calendar year 2010.\nAdditionally, the inspector identified vents that were not properly installed and protected from\ndirt, liquids, or other conditions that might prevent their proper operation at Respondent’s Casa\nDel Sol system and its underground tank at Lauderhill II-West system.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a) by failing to regularly inspect\nand test its pressure limiting and regulating stations at least once each year, at intervals not\nexceeding fifteen months, at its Caroma, Promenade at Inverrary, Casa Del Sol, and Barefoot\nBay systems and by failing to properly install and protect vents on its Casa Del Sol and\nLauderhill II-West systems.\nItem 12: The Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.741(a), which states:\n\n\n\n5\n§ 192.741 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Telemetering or\nrecording gauges.\n(a) Each distribution system supplied by more than one district\npressure regulating station must be equipped with telemetering or\nrecording pressure gauges to indicate the gas pressure in the district.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 192.741(a) by failing to place telemetering or\nrecording pressure gauges in distribution systems served by more than one pressure regulating\nstation. Specifically, the PHMSA inspector found Respondent’s Caroma, Casa Del Sol, and\nLauderhill-West distribution systems are served from two separate regulator stations but did not\nhave telemetering or recording pressure gauges.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find Respondent violated § 192.741(a) by failing to place telemetering or\nrecording pressure gauges in its Caroma, Casa Del Sol, and Lauderhill-West distribution\nsystems.\nItem 13: The Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a), which states:\n§ 192.743 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Capacity of\nrelief devices.\n(a) Pressure relief devices at pressure limiting stations and pressure\nregulating stations must have sufficient capacity to protect the facilities\nto which they are connected. Except as provided in §192.739(b), the\ncapacity must be consistent with the pressure limits of §192.201(a).\nThis capacity must be determined at intervals not exceeding 15 months,\nbut at least once each calendar year, by testing the devices in place or\nby review and calculations.\nThe Notice alleged Respondent violated § 192.743(a) by failing to test the capacity of a relief\ndevice, either in place or by review and calculations, at least once each calendar year at intervals\nnot exceeding fifteen months. Specifically, the PHMSA inspector found FPUC did not test the\ncapacity of a relief device, in place or by review and calculations, located downstream of its\nLauderhill-East system within the required interval.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a) by failing to test the capacity\nof a relief device, in place or by review and calculations, downstream of its Lauderhill-East\nsystem at least once each calendar year, in intervals not exceeding fifteen months.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\n\n\n\n6\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.2 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $40,600 for the two violations cited below.\nItem 10: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $18,700, for Respondent violating 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.723(b) by not conducting a leakage survey of the “green zone” of its Barefoot Bay system\nat least once every five calendar years, at intervals not exceeding sixty-three months. With\nrespect to the nature, circumstances, and gravity of this violation, surveying the conditions along\na section of gas pipeline once every five calendar years is a key part of pipeline safety; failure to\ndo so may result in a pipeline leak that has an adverse impact on the environment. With respect\nto culpability, Respondent did not contest the violation and provided no basis for its failure to\ncomply with § 192.723(b). While Respondent stated that a leakage survey of the “green zone”\nwas completed on December 7, 2013 – a date outside of the five-year statutory period, nothing in\nthe record constitutes a good faith effort to comply prior to the OPS inspection.\nRespondent has presented no evidence or arguments that would warrant a reduction in the civil\npenalty amount proposed for this Item in the Notice. Accordingly, having reviewed the record\nand considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $18,700 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. 723(b).\nItem 11: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $21,900, for Respondent violating 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.739(a) by failing to conduct regulator inspections at its Caroma, Promenade at Inverrary,\nCasa Del Sol, and Barefoot Bay systems. The Notice also proposed this penalty for Respondent\nviolating 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a) by not properly installing and protecting vents on its Casa Del\nSol and Lauderhill II-West systems. With respect to the nature, circumstances, and gravity of\nthis violation, inspecting pressure regulator stations along four sections of gas pipelines at least\nonce every calendar year, as well as properly installing and protecting vents on two sections of\npipeline, are key parts to pipeline safety; failure to do so may result in a pipeline leak that has an\nadverse impact on the environment. With respect to culpability, Respondent did not contest the\nviolation, nor present any evidence or argument justifying a reduction of the proposed penalty.\nWhile Respondent noted that after the PHMSA inspection on August 26-30, 2013, steps have\nbeen implemented to remedy these violations, nothing in the record constitutes a good faith\n2 Effective January 3, 2012, the maximum administrative civil penalties for violations of the federal pipeline safety\nregulations were doubled to $200,000 per violation per day of violation with a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related\nseries of violations (The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-90)).\nBecause the violations in this case occurred prior to the increase, the higher maximums do not apply.\n\n\n\n7\neffort to comply prior to the OPS inspection.\nRespondent has presented no evidence or arguments that would warrant a reduction in the civil\npenalty amount proposed for this Item in the Notice. Accordingly, having reviewed the record\nand considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $21,900 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $40,600.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $40,600 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13 for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.11(b), 192.625(f), 192.707(a), 192.739(a), 192.741(a), and\n192.743(a). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas,\nor who owns or operates a pipeline facility, is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under Chapter 601.\nIn its Response, FPUC stated its intent to address the violations cited in the Notice. I\nacknowledge Respondent’s efforts in taking initial steps to remedy these violations, but note that\nFPUC did not provide any documentation with its Response showing that the corrective actions\nhave been completed. Accordingly, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Items 1, 7,\n8, 11, 12, and 13 are included in this Order.\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 § 192.11(b), (Item 1), Respondent must survey\nall of its PHMSA regulated systems in the state of Florida, identify all locations\n\n\n\n8\n2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. that do not meet the NFPA standard, and take corrective actions to bring the\nidentified locations into compliance with the distances specified in the NFPA 58\n(2004) standard.\nWith respect to the violation of § 192.625(f), (Item 7), Respondent must use an\ninstrument to verify that the percentage of gas in the air exists at a concentration\nof one-fifth of the lower explosive limit, and that this gas is readily detectable by\na person with a normal sense of smell. Further, Respondent must conduct this\ninstrumented sampling at multiple locations within each system, including at the\nextremities of the systems and within dead legs, for all of its PHMSA regulated\nsystems in the state of Florida where this sampling was not already conducted.\nWith respect to the violation of § 192.707(a), (Item 8), Respondent must survey\nall of its PHMSA regulated systems in the state of Florida, identify locations\nwhere buried mains cross public roads, and ensure that pipeline markers meeting\nthe requirements of §192.707(d) are placed and maintained as close as practical\nover each buried main at each crossing of a public road.\nWith respect to the violation of § 192.739(a), (Item 11), Respondent must survey\nall of its PHMSA regulated systems in the state of Florida, identify locations\nwhere its pressure limiting and regulating stations have not been inspected in the\nlast fifteen months, and must inspect and test its pressure limiting and regulating\nstations to ensure they meet the requirements of §192.739(a).\nWith respect to the violation of § 192.741(a), (Item 12), Respondent must survey\nall of its PHMSA regulated systems in the state of Florida, identify locations\nwhere its LPG distribution systems are supplied by more than one pressure\nregulating station which do not have telemetering or recording pressure gauges\ninstalled, and install telemetering or recording pressure gauges in these systems.\nWith respect to the violation of § 192.743(a), (Item 13), Respondent must survey\nall of its PHMSA regulated systems in the state of Florida and determine the\ncapacity of all relief devices, by testing the devices in place or by review and\ncalculations, thus ensuring they have sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to\nwhich they are connected.\nRespondent must complete the above items and prepare records to document the\nresults within 90 days after the receipt of this Order.\nWithin 100 days following receipt of this Order, Respondent must provide to the\nDirector, Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, U.S. Department of\nTransportation, 223 Peachtree Street, Suite 600, Atlanta, GA 30303, written\ndocumentation demonstrating that these compliance order items have been\ncompleted and must make such records available for inspection by PHMSA\nrepresentatives.\n\n\n\n9\n9. It is requested (not mandated) that FPUC maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this compliance order and submit the\ntotal to the Director, Southern Region, OPS. It is requested that these costs be\nreported in two categories:\n(a) Total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures\nstudies, and analyses; and\n(b) Total cost associated with replacements, additions, and other changes to\npipeline infrastructure.\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.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 14, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192\nbut did not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are\nconsidered to be warning items. The warnings are for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.465 (Item 2) – Respondent’s alleged failure to test pipelines under\ncathodic protection at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding\nfifteen months;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.465 (Item 3) – Respondent’s alleged failure to take prompt remedial\naction to correct external corrosion control deficiencies identified by its monitoring;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.481 (Item 4) – Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect each of its\nonshore pipelines, or portion of pipelines, that are exposed to the atmosphere for\nevidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once every three calendar years, but with\nintervals not exceeding fifteen months;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605 (Item 5) – Respondent’s alleged failure to review and update its\nprocedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies at intervals not\nexceeding fifteen months, but at least once each calendar year;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605 (Item 6) – Respondent’s alleged failure to periodically review the\nwork done by its personnel to determine the effectiveness and adequacy of the procedures\nused in normal operation and maintenance, and to modify the procedure when\ndeficiencies were found;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.723 (Item 9) – Respondent’s alleged failure to conduct leakage surveys\n\n\n\n10\nin business districts, at intervals not exceeding fifteen months, but at least once each\ncalendar year; and\n49 C.F.R. § 192.747 (Item 14) – Respondent’s alleged failure to check and service each\nvalve which may be necessary for the safe operation of its pipeline distribution system at\nintervals not exceeding fifteen months, but at least once each calendar year.\nRespondent presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection,\nRespondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order [CPF No. 2-2014-0001]. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator,\nOffice of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor,\nWashington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same\naddress. PHMSA will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of\nthis Final Order by the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and\nmeet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays\nthe payment of any civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request,\ngrants a stay, all other terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n220140001_closure letter_02092015_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nFebruary 9, 2015\nMr. Jeffrey M. Householder\nPresident\nFlorida Public Utilities Company\n1015 6th St, NW\nWinter Haven, FL 33881\nCPF 2-2014-0001\nDear Mr. Householder:\nOn October 1, 2014, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (OPS) issued Florida Public Utilities Company (FPU) a Final Order\nwith an attached Compliance Order (CO) in the above-referenced case. The CO required FPU\nto undertake certain actions to ensure compliance with the federal pipeline safety regulations.\nThe OPS Southern Region received and reviewed FPU’s response to the CO dated\nJanuary 20, 2015. Based on our review of the actions taken by FPU, we have determined that\nFPU has complied with the terms of the CO and the Final Order.\nThis case is now closed and no further action is necessary with respect to the matters involved\nin this case.\nPlease be advised that this letter refers only to the above referenced order (CPF 2-2014-0001)\nand not to any other PHMSA cases, if any.\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region","truncated":false,"body_characters":30542}