{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220200003W","title":"GAINESVILLE REGIONAL UTIL GAS DEPT — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2020-12-09","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.491(c), 192.603(b), 192.723(b)(2), 192.741(a), 192.743(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220200003w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220200003w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220200003w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220200003W","body":"Warning Letter involving GAINESVILLE REGIONAL UTIL GAS DEPT. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.491(c),  192.603(b),  192.723(b)(2),  192.741(a),  192.743(a). The case was opened on 2020-12-09 and is reported as closed as of 2020-12-09. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220200003W_Warning Letter_12092020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220200003W/220200003W_Warning%20Letter_12092020.pdf\n\n220200003W_Warning Letter_12092020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220200003W/220200003W_Warning%20Letter_12092020_text.pdf\n\n220200003W_Warning Letter_12092020_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nDecember 9, 2020\nMr. Anthony Hewitt\nGas T&D Manager\nGainesville Regional Utilities Gas Department\n3805 NW 97th Boulevard\nGainesville, FL 32606\nCPF 2-2020-0003W\nDear Mr. Hewitt:\nBetween September 30 and October 3, 2019, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety,\ninspected the Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) liquefied petroleum gas (LP-Gas) procedures\nand records in GRU’s Gainesville, Florida, offices and pipeline facilities located in Alachua\nCounty, Florida, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.).\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that GRU has committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected\nand the probable violations are:\n1. § 192.491 Corrosion control records.\n. . . .\nEach operator shall maintain a record of each test, survey, or inspection\nrequired by this subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion\ncontrol measures or that a corrosive condition does not exist. These records must be\n\n\n\nretained for at least 5 years, except that records related to §§ 192.465 (a) and\n(e) and 192.475(b) must be retained for as long as the pipeline remains in service.\nGRU failed to meet the regulation because it did not maintain records of each test, survey, or\ninspection required by Subpart I (Requirements for Corrosion Control) in sufficient detail to\ndemonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that a corrosive condition did not\nexist. Specifically, GRU failed to maintain records for atmospheric corrosion control\nmonitoring, required by § 192.481(a), that it performed at risers, service regulators, meters,\nand associated piping.\nWhile reviewing atmospheric corrosion control monitoring records, the PHMSA inspector\nnoted that the provided records were for atmospheric monitoring that occurred at or\nupstream of the regulator station and inquired about any monitoring performed downstream\nof the regulator station. GRU personnel informed the inspector that such monitoring was\nperformed by the meter operations group, a different group within GRU, and contacted that\ngroup to request any records it had for the atmospheric corrosion monitoring. The inspector\nwas informed that GRU performs its atmospheric monitoring annually, which is more\nfrequent than the once every 3 calendar year required by § 192.481(a). However, no records\nwere produced for pipeline facilities downstream of the regulator station.\nThrough several follow-up communications, GRU clarified that it performs its LP system\nsurveys biannually and that service orders, for mitigation, are automatically generated when\na meter reader codes a gas service as ‘a rusty gas line.’ Additionally, GRU produced\nrecords of completed service orders that resulted from its October 2019 survey to\ndemonstrate its process and to show that it was addressing any atmospheric corrosion\nidentified through its surveys. However, GRU did not produce any other records, for\nlocations where it did not identify corrosion, showing that it performed the monitoring or to\ndemonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that a corrosive condition did not\nexist.\n2. § 192.603 General provisions.\n. . . .\nEach operator shall keep records necessary to administer the procedures\nestablished under § 192.605.\nGRU failed to meet the regulation because it did not keep records necessary to administer\nthe procedures established under § 192.605. Specifically, GRU did not keep records for the\ndistribution system patrolling it performed in accordance with § 192.721(b).\nWhen asked for records demonstrating that GRU patrolled it mains as required by\n§ 192.721(b), GRU personnel explained that they observe their mains on a regular basis\nduring meter reading and while performing various operations and maintenance activities.\nHowever, GRU was unable to produce any records showing when mains were patrolled, the\nportions of systems patrolled, the personnel who performed the patrols, and whether any\nsurface conditions required remedial action.\n2\n\n\n\n3. 4. Through several follow-up communications, GRU clarified that it performs its LP system\nsurveys biannually and stated that “[t]he system patrol is done the same time as the\natmospheric corrosion inspection” and also acknowledged that “[t]hey do it, but really don’t\nhave a way to document it.”\n§ 192.723 Distribution systems: Leakage surveys.\n. . . .\nThe type and scope of the leakage control program must be determined by\nthe nature of the operations and the local conditions, but it must meet the following\nminimum requirements:\n. . . .\n(1) A leakage survey with leak detector equipment must be conducted outside\nbusiness districts as frequently as necessary, but at least once every 5 calendar years at\nintervals not exceeding 63 months. However, for cathodically unprotected distribution\nlines subject to § 192.465(e) on which electrical surveys for corrosion are impractical, a\nleakage survey must be conducted at least once every 3 calendar years at intervals not\nexceeding 39 months.\nGRU failed to meet the regulation because it did not conduct distribution system leakage\nsurveys outside business districts at least once every 5 calendar years at intervals not\nexceeding 63 months. Specifically, the time between leakage surveys on three (3) of its\nLP-Gas distribution system exceeded the 63 months allowed by the regulation. The\nfollowing table lists the systems and the dates of GRU’s distribution system leakage\nsurveys:\nLP-Gas\nDistribution System\nCharleston East Date(s) of\nLeakage Survey\nJun 21, 2017 Exceeded\n63 months by\n6 months\nMeadows of Kanapaha Jul 16, 2018 3 months\nThe Grove Jun 22 to 28, 2017 1 week\nDate(s) of Prior\nLeakage Survey\nSep 07, 2011 Jan 17, 2013 Mar 15 to 21, 2012 § 192.741 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Telemetering or recording gauges.\nEach distribution system supplied by more than one district pressure\nregulating station must be equipped with telemetering or recording pressure gauges to\nindicate the gas pressure in the district.\nGRU failed to meet the regulation because it did not supply each distribution system with a\nsufficient number of telemetering or recording gauges to indicate the gas pressure supplied\nwithin each district. Specifically, GRU did not equip one of its LP-Gas distribution systems,\nThe Grove, with a sufficient number of telemetering or recording gauges such that the\nperformance of each district regulator and auxiliary equipment was adequately monitored to\ndetect unsatisfactory operation.\n3\n\n\n\n5. A review of records and field observations identified that The Grove was supplied by two\n(2) district regulator stations, with the system feeds located on opposite ends of the system.\nHowever, the only telemetering device in the system was installed immediately downstream\nof the Tank 1 regulator station. As indicated by § 192.741(c) the purpose of paragraph (a) is\nto identify any high or low pressures within a distribution system which would indicate\nunsatisfactory operation of a pressure regulator or auxiliary equipment supplying the district\nwith gas. GRU did not have telemetering in place that would have indicated unsatisfactory\noperation of the Tank 7 regulator station.\nSubsequent to the inspection, GRU installed telemetering equipment to monitor the\nperformance of the Tank 7 regulator station.\n§ 192.743 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Capacity of relief devices.\nPressure 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 the\npressure limits of § 192.201(a). This capacity must be determined at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, by testing the devices in\nplace or by review and calculations.\nGRU failed to meet the regulation because it did not ensure that pressure relief devices at its\npressure regulating stations had sufficient capacity, consistent within the pressure limits of\n§ 192.201(a), to protect the facilities to which they were connected. Specifically, in October\n2018, GRU installed new relief devices on two of its distribution systems, Meadows of\nKanapaha and Newberry Oaks, and did not evaluate whether the devices had sufficient\ncapacity. In July 2019, GRU performed maintenance on the devices, but still did not\nevaluate whether the capacity of the relief devices was adequate.\nThe October 2018 regulator station maintenance records for the Meadows of Kanapaha and\nNewberry Oaks distribution systems, reviewed during the inspection, indicated that GRU\nreplaced the relief devices on the two systems with Flow Safe F85 “pop-off” relief valves.\nThe Flow Safe installation was noted in the remarks, however, the section, of the form, for\nrelief valve information identified the relief valve model and relief capacity of the device\nthat was replaced. The relief valve section was not updated to reflect the newly installed\ndevice or its relief capacity. The relief valve section of the July 2019 regulator station\nmaintenance records for the two systems properly identified the Flow Safe relief devices but\nstill listed the relief capacity of the previously replaced devices.\nDuring the field inspection of the two systems, the PHMSA inspector observed that the\nrelief capacity of the Flow Safe devices was lower than the relief capacity listed on the\nOctober 2018 and July 2019 maintenance forms.\nThrough several follow-up communications, GRU acknowledged that “[a] re-inspection\ndetermined that the relief valves at these sites were not sufficient for the application” and\nthat “Fisher 289 reliefs were installed to mitigate this concern.” GRU supplied records of\ncapacity evaluations for the Fisher reliefs it installed.\n4\n\n\n\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for a\nrelated series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and before\nJuly 31, 2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day, with a\nmaximum penalty not to exceed $2,132,679. For violation occurring on or after November 2,\n2015 and before November 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per\nviolation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring\nprior to November 2, 2015, the maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per\nday, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations.\nWe have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case, and have\ndecided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this\ntime. We advise you to correct the items identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in\nGainesville Regional Utilities Gas Department being subject to additional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer to\nCPF 2-2020-0003W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement\naction is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your\nresponsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the\ncomplete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions\nyou believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe\nthe redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nSincerely,\nJames A. Urisko\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\n5","truncated":false,"body_characters":12645}