{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220160002","title":"WASHINGTON HEIGHTS APARTMENTS — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2016-05-10","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.1015(a), 192.463(a), 192.491(c), 192.603(b), 192.605(a), 192.614(b), 192.616(j), 192.707(c), 192.805, 192.807(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220160002.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220160002.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220160002","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220160002","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving WASHINGTON HEIGHTS APARTMENTS. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.1015(a),  192.463(a),  192.491(c),  192.603(b),  192.605(a),  192.614(b),  192.616(j),  192.707(c),  192.805,  192.807(b). The case was opened on 2016-05-10 and is reported as closed as of 2018-09-07. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220160002_Closure Letter_09072018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220160002/220160002_Closure%20Letter_09072018.pdf\n\n220160002_Closure Letter_09072018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220160002/220160002_Closure%20Letter_09072018_text.pdf\n\n220160002_Final Order_09302016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220160002/220160002_Final%20Order_09302016.pdf\n\n220160002_Final Order_09302016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220160002/220160002_Final%20Order_09302016_text.pdf\n\n220160002_NOPV PCO_05102016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220160002/220160002_NOPV%20PCO_05102016.pdf\n\n220160002_NOPV PCO_05102016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220160002/220160002_NOPV%20PCO_05102016_text.pdf\n\n220160002_Operator Response to Notice_10202016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220160002/220160002_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_10202016.pdf\n\n220160002_Final Order_09302016_text.pdf\n\nSeptember 30, 2016\nMs. Terri Benskin\nCOO & Executive Vice President\nLEDIC Realty Company, LLC\n105 Tallapoosa St., Suite 300\nMontgomery, AL 36104\nRe: CPF No. 2-2016-0001\nCPF No. 2-2016-0002\nDear Ms. Benskin:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced cases. It makes findings of\nviolations and specifies actions that need to be taken by LEDIC Realty Company, LLC to\ncomply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been\ncompleted, as determined by the Director, Southern Region, this enforcement action will be\nclosed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing,\nor as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. James A. Urisko, Director, Southern Region, OPS\nMs. Debbie Workman, Director, LEDIC Realty Company, LLC\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____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nLEDIC Realty Company, LLC, ) CPF No. 2-2016-0001\n) CPF No. 2-2016-0002\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn December 15-16, 2015, 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 LEDIC Realty\nCompany, LLC (LEDIC or Respondent) in Jacksonville, Florida. LEDIC operates the Eureka\nGardens master meter system that provides natural gas to approximately 400 customers in the\nEureka Gardens I and Eureka Gardens II apartment complexes.1 Each apartment complex has its\nown master meter which are tied together and feed to make a single system.2 LEDIC also\noperates the Washington Heights master meter system that provides natural gas to approximately\n200 customers.3\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated May 10, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that LEDIC had committed\nvarious violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain\nmeasures to correct the alleged violations. The warning items required no further action, but\nwarned the operator to correct the probable violation or face possible enforcement action.4\nRespondent failed to respond within 30 days of receipt of service of the Notice. Under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.208(d), such failure to respond constitutes a waiver of LEDIC’s right to contest the\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (May 5, 2016) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n2 Id.\n3 Id.\n4 CPF No. 2-2016-0001 refers to probable violations on the Eureka Gardens pipeline system, Items 1 through 13;\nCPF No. 2-2016-0002 refers to probable violations on the Washington Heights pipeline system, Items 3 through 8,\nand 10 through 13.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2016-0001\nCPF No. 2-2016-0002\nPage 2\nallegations in the Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator, without further notice, to\nfind facts as alleged in the Notice and to issue this Final Order under § 190.213. In this case, the\nNotice was mailed to Respondent by certified mail (USPS Article No. 7012 2210 0001 9165\n4184) on May 10, 2016, and was received by Respondent on May 13, 2016, as shown by the\nreturn receipt on file with PHMSA. Southern Region contacted LEDIC by telephone on June 14,\n2016, to determine whether LEDIC had sent a response, and to remind LEDIC of its right to\nrespond. To date, Respondent has not responded to the Notice. Under such circumstances, I find\nit reasonable and appropriate to enter this Final Order without further proceedings.5\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nLEDIC did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as\nfollows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.355(b), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.355 Customer meters and regulators: Protection from damage.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Service regulator vents and relief vents. Service regulator vents and relief\nvents must terminate outdoors, and the outdoor terminal must—\n(1) Be rain and insect resistant;\n(2) Be located at a place where gas from the vent can escape freely into the\natmosphere and away from any opening into the building . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.355(b) by failing to install service\nregulator vents and relief vents with outdoor terminals that were rain and insect resistant and\nwere located at a place where gas from the vent can escape freely into the atmosphere and away\nfrom any opening into the building. Specifically, the Notice alleged that LEDIC’s Eureka\nGardens building 14 had a service regulator relief vent positioned such that it would allow water\nto enter and stay in the regulator. Additionally, the service regulator relief vent did not have\nscreens in place to prevent insects from entering the regulator, and was installed under a window\nnear an opening into the building.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.355(b) by failing to install\nservice regulator vents and relief vents with outdoor terminals that were rain and insect resistant\nand located at a place where gas from the vent can escape freely into the atmosphere and away\nfrom any opening into the building.\n5 In the Matter of Tampa Pipeline Corporation, Final Order, CPF No. 2-2008-6002 (April 26, 2010), 2010 WL\n6531627, (D.O.T.), August 27, 2010; see also, In the Matter of Tampa Bay Pipeline Corporation, Final Order, CPF\nNo. 2-2005-6012 (Dec. 1, 2006), 2008 WL 902910 (D.O.T.), March 31, 2008. (available at\nwww.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2016-0001\nCPF No. 2-2016-0002\nPage 3\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.463(a), which states:\n§ 192.463 External corrosion control: Cathodic protection.\n(a) Each cathodic protection system required by this subpart must provide a\nlevel of cathodic protection that complies with one or more of the applicable criteria\ncontained in appendix D of this part. If none of these criteria is applicable, the\ncathodic protection system must provide a level of cathodic protection at least equal\nto that provided by compliance with one or more of these criteria.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.463(a) by failing to ensure that\neach cathodic protection system provided a level of cathodic protection that complies with one or\nmore of the applicable criteria contained in appendix D of 49 C.F.R. Part 192. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that at the time of the inspection, the rectifier on the system was not operational\nand cathodic protection pipe-to-soil (p/s) readings were low,6 which indicated inadequate levels\nof cathodic protection. Low p/s readings were found on: mains at the Eureka Gardens I master\nmeter, ranging from -0.518V to -0.514V; service line risers at Eureka Gardens I buildings 2 and\n14, ranging from -0.518V to -0.490V; main at the Eureka Gardens II master meter, which read\n-0.511V; service line risers at Eureka Gardens II buildings 28 and 32, ranging from -0.524V to\n-0.507V; mains at the Washington Heights master meter, ranging from -0.480V to -0.435V; and\nservice line risers at Washington Heights buildings H, I, and T, ranging from -0.430V to\n-0.360V. Additionally, LEDIC did not have any records to show when the cathodic protection\nsystem stopped providing an adequate level of cathodic protection.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.463(a) by failing to ensure that\neach cathodic protection system provided a level of cathodic protection that complies with one or\nmore of the applicable criteria contained in appendix D of 49 C.F.R. Part 192.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), which states:\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual\nof written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for\nemergency response. For transmission lines, the manual must also include\nprocedures for handling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and\nupdated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each\ncalendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system\ncommence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to prepare and\n6 The applicable criterion for cathodic protection contained in appendix D of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 states, “[a] negative\n(cathodic) voltage of at least 0.85 volt (V), with reference to a saturated copper-copper sulfate half cell. . . .”\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2016-0001\nCPF No. 2-2016-0002\nPage 4\nfollow for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and\nmaintenance activities and for emergency response. Specifically, the Notice alleged that at the\ntime of the inspection, the PHMSA inspector requested LEDIC’s written procedures manual for\noperations, maintenance, and emergencies for its Eureka Gardens and Washington Heights\nmaster meter systems. The LEDIC representative informed the inspector that LEDIC did not\nhave a manual of written procedures.\nThe manual required by § 192.605(a) should have included procedures pertaining to master\nmeter systems in accordance with:\n§ 192.605(b)(1) for operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance with Part\n192, Subparts L and M;\n§ 192.605(b)(2) for controlling corrosion in accordance with the operations and maintenance\nrequirements of Part 192, Subpart I;\n§ 192.605(b)(3) for making construction records, maps, and operating history available to\nappropriate operating personnel;\n§ 192.605(b)(4) for gathering of data needed for reporting incidents under 49 C.F.R. Part 191\nin a timely and effective manner;\n§ 192.605(b)(8) for periodically reviewing the work done by operator personnel to determine\nthe effectiveness and adequacy of the procedures used in normal operation and maintenance, and\nmodifying the procedures when deficiencies are found;\n§ 192.605(b)(9) for taking adequate precautions in excavated trenches to protect personnel\nfrom the hazards of unsafe accumulations of vapor or gas, and making available, when needed at\nthe excavation, emergency rescue equipment, including a breathing apparatus, and a rescue\nharness and line;\n§ 192.605(b)(11) for responding promptly to a report of a gas odor inside or near a building,\nunless the operator’s emergency procedures under § 192.615(a)(3) specifically apply to these\nreports; and\n§ 192.605(e) for continuing surveillance, in accordance with § 192.613(a), emergency\nresponse, in accordance with § 192.615, and investigation of failures, in accordance with\n§ 192.617.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to prepare and\nfollow for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and\nmaintenance activities and for emergency response.\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.614(b), which states:\n§ 192.614 Damage prevention program.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) An operator may comply with any of the requirements of paragraph (c) of\nthis section through participation in a public service program, such as a one-call\nsystem, but such participation does not relieve the operator of responsibility for\ncompliance with this section. However, an operator must perform the duties of\nparagraph (c)(3) of this section through participation in a one-call system, if that\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2016-0001\nCPF No. 2-2016-0002\nPage 5\none-call system is a qualified one-call system. In areas that are covered by more\nthan one qualified one-call system, an operator need only join one of the qualified\none-call systems if there is a central telephone number for excavators to call for\nexcavation activities, or if the one-call systems in those areas communicate with\none another. An operator’s pipeline system must be covered by a qualified one-call\nsystem where there is one in place. For the purpose of this section, a one-call system\nis considered a “qualified one-call system” if it meets the requirements of section\n(b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section. . . .\n(c) The damage prevention program required by paragraph (a) of this section\nmust, at a minimum:\n(1) . . . .\n(3) Provide a means of receiving and recording notification of planned\nexcavation activities.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.614(b) by failing to participate in a\nqualified one-call system. Specifically, the Notice alleged that LEDIC did not provide a means\nof receiving and recording notification of planned excavation activities in accordance with\n§ 192.614(c)(3) through participation in a qualified one-call system. Section 192.614(b) requires\nan operator’s pipeline system to be covered by a qualified one-call system where there is one in\nplace. Florida’s Sunshine 811 is a qualified one-call system. At the time of the inspection, the\nPHMSA inspector requested documentation to demonstrate LEDIC has registered its Eureka\nGardens and Washington Heights master meter systems with Sunshine 811. The LEDIC\nrepresentative informed the inspector that LEDIC was not aware of the damage prevention\nrequirements.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.614(b) by failing to participate\nin a qualified one-call system.\nItem 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(j), which states:\n§ 192.616 Public awareness.\n(a) . . . .\n(j) Unless the operator transports gas a primary activity, the operator of a master\nmeter or petroleum gas system is not required to develop a public awareness\nprogram as prescribed in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section. Instead the\noperator must develop and implement a written procedure to provide its customers\npublic awareness messages twice annually. If the master meter or petroleum gas\nsystem is located on property the operator does not control, the operator must\nprovide similar messages twice annually to persons controlling the property. The\npublic awareness message must include:\n(1) A description of the purpose and reliability of the pipeline;\n(2) An overview of the hazards of the pipeline and prevention measures used;\n(3) Information about damage prevention;\n(4) How to recognize and respond to a leak; and\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2016-0001\nCPF No. 2-2016-0002\nPage 6\n(5) How to get additional information.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(j) by failing to develop and\nimplement a written procedure to provide its customers public awareness messages twice\nannually. Specifically, the Notice alleged that at the time of the inspection, the PHMSA\ninspector requested LEDIC’s written procedure for providing its Eureka Gardens and\nWashington Heights master meter customers public awareness messages. The LEDIC\nrepresentative informed the inspector that LEDIC did not have written procedures for providing\nits customers public awareness messages.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(j) by failing to develop and\nimplement a written procedure to provide its customers public awareness messages twice\nannually.\nItem 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(a), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.707 Line markers for mains and transmission lines.\n(a) Buried pipelines. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a line\nmarker must be placed and maintained as close as practical over each buried main\nand transmission line:\n(1) At each crossing of a public road and railroad . . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(a) by failing to place and\nmaintain a line marker as close as practical over each buried main line at each crossing of a\npublic road. Specifically, the Notice alleged that at the time of the inspection, the PHMSA\ninspector observed that there were no pipeline markers on Hollycrest Drive where the main\ncrossed from Eureka Gardens I to Eureka Gardens II.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(a) by failing to place and\nmaintain a line marker as close as practical over each buried main line at each crossing of a\npublic road.\nItem 11: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805, which states:\n§ 192.805 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The\nprogram shall include provisions to:\n(a) Identify covered tasks;\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are\nqualified;\n(c) Allow individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this subpart to perform\na covered task if directed and observed by an individual that is qualified;\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2016-0001\nCPF No. 2-2016-0002\nPage 7\n(d) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe that the\nindividual’s performance of a covered task contributed to an incident as defined in\nPart 191;\n(e) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe that the\nindividual is no longer qualified to perform a covered task;\n(f) Communicate changes that affect covered tasks to individuals performing\nthose covered tasks;\n(g) Identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which evaluation of the\nindividual’s qualifications is needed;\n(h) After December 16, 2004, provide training, as appropriate, to ensure that\nindividuals performing covered tasks have the necessary knowledge and skills to\nperform the tasks in a manner that ensures the safe operation of pipeline facilities;\nand\n(i) After December 16, 2004, notify the Administrator or a state agency\nparticipating under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 if the operator significantly modifies the\nprogram after the Administrator or state agency has verified that it complies with\nthis section.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805 by failing to have and follow a\nwritten qualification program. Specifically, the Notice alleged that at the time of the inspection,\nthe PHMSA inspector requested LEDIC’s written qualification program for its Eureka Gardens\nand Washington Heights master meter systems. The LEDIC representative informed the\ninspector that LEDIC did not have a written qualification program.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805 by failing to have and\nfollow a written qualification program.\nItem 13: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1015(a), which states:\n§ 192.1015 What must a master meter or small liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)\noperator do to implement this subpart?\n(a) General. No later than August 2, 2011 the operator of a master meter system\nor a small LPG operator must develop and implement an IM program that includes\na written IM plan as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. The IM program for\nthese pipelines should reflect the relative simplicity of these types of pipelines.\n(b) Elements. A written integrity management plan must address, at a\nminimum, the following elements:\n(1) Knowledge. The operator must demonstrate knowledge of its pipeline,\nwhich, to the extent known, should include the approximate location and material\nof its pipeline. The operator must identify additional information needed and\nprovide a plan for gaining knowledge over time through normal activities\nconducted on the pipeline (for example, design, construction, operations or\nmaintenance activities).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2016-0001\nCPF No. 2-2016-0002\nPage 8\n(2) Identify threats. The operator must consider, at minimum, the following\ncategories of threats (existing and potential): Corrosion, natural forces, excavation\ndamage, other outside force damage, material or weld failure, equipment failure,\nand incorrect operation.\n(3) Rank risks. The operator must evaluate the risks to its pipeline and estimate\nthe relative importance of each identified threat.\n(4) Identify and implement measures to mitigate risks. The operator must\ndetermine and implement measures designed to reduce the risks from failure of its\npipeline.\n(5) Measure performance, monitor results, and evaluate effectiveness. The\noperator must monitor, as a performance measure, the number of leaks eliminated\nor repaired on its pipeline and their causes.\n(6) Periodic evaluation and improvement. The operator must determine the\nappropriate period for conducting IM program evaluations based on the complexity\nof its pipeline and changes in factors affecting the risk of failure. An operator must\nre-evaluate its entire program at least every five years. The operator must consider\nthe results of the performance monitoring in these evaluations.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1015(a) by failing to develop and\nimplement a Distribution Integrity Management Plan (DIMP) that includes a written Integrity\nManagement (IM) plan as specified in § 192.1015(b) by August 2, 2011. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that at the time of the inspection, the PHMSA inspector requested LEDIC’s\nDIMP for its Eureka Gardens and Washington Heights master meter systems. The LEDIC\nrepresentative informed the inspector that LEDIC did not have DIMPs for these systems.\nThe DIMP required by § 192.1015(a) should have included procedures in accordance with:\n§ 192.1015(b)(1), to demonstrate knowledge of its pipeline, which, to the extent known,\nshould include the approximate location and material of the pipeline;\n§ 192.1015(b)(1), to identify additional information needed and provide a plan for gaining\nknowledge over time through normal activities conducted on the pipeline (for example, design,\nconstruction, operations, or maintenance activities);\n§ 192.1015(b)(2), to consider, at minimum, the following categories of threats (existing and\npotential): corrosion, natural forces, excavation damage, other outside force damage, material or\nweld failure, equipment failure, and incorrect operation;\n§ 192.1015(b)(3), to evaluate the risks to the pipeline and estimate the relative importance of\neach identified threat;\n§ 192.1015(b)(4), to determine and implement measures designed to reduce the risks from\npipeline failure;\n§ 192.1015(b)(5), to monitor, as a performance measure, the number of leaks eliminated or\nrepaired on its pipeline and their causes;\n§ 192.1015(b)(6), to determine the appropriate period for conducting IM program\nevaluations based on the complexity of the pipeline and changes in factors affecting the risk of\nfailure; and\n§ 192.1015(b)(6), to re-evaluate the entire program at least every five years and consider the\nresults of the performance monitoring in these evaluations.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2016-0001\nCPF No. 2-2016-0002\nPage 9\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1015(a) by failing to develop\nand implement a DIMP that includes a written IM plan as specified in § 192.1015(b) by August\n2, 2011.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 13 in the\nNotice for violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.355(b), 192.463(a), 192.605(a), 192.614(b), 192.616(j),\n192.707(a), 192.805, and 192.1015(a), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person\nwho engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required\nto comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the\nauthority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the\nfollowing actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its\noperations:\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. With respect to the violation of § 192.355(b) (Item 1), Respondent must:\nA. Identify and bring into compliance all locations where service regulator\nvents are not rain and insect resistant; and\nB. Identify and bring into compliance all locations where service regulator\nvents do not allow gas from the vent to escape freely into the atmosphere\nand away from any opening into the building.\nWith respect to the violation of § 192.463(a) (Item 3), Respondent must bring its\ncathodic protection systems into compliance by ensuring that the systems provide\na level of cathodic protection that complies with one or more of the applicable\ncriteria contained in Part 192, Appendix D.\nWith respect to the violation of § 192.605(a) (Item 6), Respondent must prepare\nand follow a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and\nmaintenance activities and for emergency response.\nWith respect to the violation of § 192.614(b) (Item 7), Respondent must bring its\nsystems into compliance by registering and activating its pipeline systems with\nSunshine 811, the state of Florida’s qualified one-call system.\nWith respect to the violation of § 192.616(j) (Item 8), Respondent must develop\nand implement a written procedure for delivering public awareness messages\ntwice annually, containing all of the required elements in § 192.616(j).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2016-0001\nCPF No. 2-2016-0002\nPage 10\n6. With respect to the violation of § 192.707(a) (Item 9), Respondent must identify\nand bring into compliance all locations which do not have line markers.\n7. With respect to the violation of § 192.805 (Item 11), Respondent must prepare\nand follow a written qualification program for ensuring that its employees and\ncontractors who perform covered tasks are qualified in accordance with the Part\n192, Subpart N requirements.\n8. With respect to the violation of § 192.1015(a) (Item 13), Respondent must\ndevelop and implement a written IM plan.\n9. Complete Compliance Order Items 1 through 8 above and prepare records to\ndocument the results within 90 days after receipt of the Final Order.\n10. Submit to the Director, Southern Region, OPS, within 120 days following receipt\nof the Final Order, written documentation of steps taken to satisfy Compliance\nOrder Items 1 through 8 above and certification that the Compliance Order Items\nhave been completed.\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.\nIn addition, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217,\nRespondent is requested (not mandated) to take the following action:\nLEDIC should maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated\nwith fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to James A. Urisko,\nDirector, Southern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.\nIt is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated\nwith preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and 2) total cost\nassociated with replacements, 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 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, 4, 5, 10, and 12, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but\ndid not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are\nconsidered to be warning items. The warnings were for:\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2016-0001\nCPF No. 2-2016-0002\nPage 11\n49 C.F.R. § 192.357(a) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to ensure that\neach customer regulator was installed so as to minimize anticipated stresses upon\nthe connecting piping;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.491(c) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain\nrecords of each test, survey, or inspection required by Subpart I of Part 192 in\nsufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that\na corrosive condition did not exist;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b) (Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to keep records\nnecessary to administer the procedures established under § 192.605 that pertain to\nmaster meter pipeline systems;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.707(c) (Item 10) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to place and\nmaintain line markers at locations where the main came above ground in areas\naccessible to the public; and\n49 C.F.R. § 192.807(b) (Item 12) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain\nrecords supporting an individual’s current qualification while the individual is\nperforming the covered task, as well as prior qualification records.\nIf OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be\nsubject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay, the terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n__________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n220160002_Closure Letter_09072018_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nSeptember 7, 2018\nReverend Richard Hamlet\nPresident and CEO\nGlobal Ministries Foundation\n65 Germantown Court, Suite 409\nCordova, TN 38018\nCPF 2-2016-0001 & 2-2016-0002\nDear Reverend Hamlet:\nOn September 30, 2016, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) issued the LEDIC Realty Company, LLC\n(LEDIC) a Final Order with a Compliance Order (CO) for required actions on LEDIC’s\nmaster meter systems at the Eureka Gardens and Washington Heights residential complexes.\nOn February 27, 2017, LEDIC notified PHMSA that, as of January 31, 2017, Global\nMinistries Foundation (GMF) had assumed ownership of the referenced properties.\nOPS Southern Region received multiple communications documenting both LEDIC’s and\nGMF’s response to the CO. Confirmation of GMF’s compliance with all required items was\nreceived on August 21, 2018.\nBased upon our review of documentation of the actions taken by GMF, we have determined\nthat GMF has complied with the terms of the CO and the Final Order. This case is now\nclosed and no further action is necessary with respect to the matters involved in this case.\nPlease be advised that this letter refers only to the above referenced orders (CPF 2-2016-0001\nand 2-2016-0002) and not to any other PHMSA cases, if any.\nSincerely,\nJames A. Urisko\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region","truncated":false,"body_characters":33837}