{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320035021","title":"VECTREN ENERGY DELIVERY OF OHIO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2003-07-30","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.404(a), 195.428(a), 195.432.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320035021.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320035021.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320035021","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320035021","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving VECTREN ENERGY DELIVERY OF OHIO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.404(a),  195.428(a),  195.432. The case was opened on 2003-07-30 and is reported as closed as of 2003-12-31. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320035021.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320035021/320035021.pdf\n\n320035021_Final Order_12312003.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320035021/320035021_Final%20Order_12312003.pdf\n\n320035021_Final Order_12312003.pdf\n\n@\nU.S.Deportnent ol Tronsportotion\nReseorchond\nSpeciol Progroms Adminislrofion\n400 Seventh St . S W\nWash'nglon. O.C 20590\nDEC 3 1 ;UU3\nMr. Rick J. Schach\nVice President, Energy Delivery\nVectren Corporation\n20 N.W. Fourth Street\nEvansville, IN 47708-1724\nRe: CPF No. 3-2003 -5021\nDear Mr. Schach:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the\nabove-referenced case. It withdraws three of the allegations of violation and finds that you have\ncompleted corrective action to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. This case is now closed\nand no further enforcement action is contemplated with respect to the matters involved in this case.\nYour receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R. $ 190.5.\nSincerely,\nAror,., Y lr/-,--:\nr,t\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Scott Albertson\nDirector, Technical Services\nVectren Corporation\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETIIRN RECEIPT REOUESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON. DC 20590\nln the Matter of\nVectren Corporation,\nRespondent\nCPF No. 3-2003-5021\nFINAL ORDER\nOn April 16-19,2002, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. $ 60117, representatives of the Office of Pipeline\nSafety (OPS), and the Ohio Public Utilities Commission conducted an on-site pipeline safety\ninspection ofRespondent's records and manuals ofprocedures in Englewood, Ohio, in conjunction\nwith a system-type inspection of Respondent's facilities. As a result of the inspection, the Director,\nCentral Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated July 30, 2003, a Notice of Probable\nViolation (Notice). ln accordance with 49 C.F.R. 5 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nRespondent had committed violations of Part 195 and warned Respondent to take appropriate\ncorrective action. The Notice also proposed, in accordance with 49 C.F.R. $ 190.237, that\nRespondent amend its procedures for operation and maintenance.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated September 19, 2003 (Response). Respondent\ncontested several of the allegations, offered information in explanation of the allegations, and\nprovided information concerning corrective action it has taken. Respondent did not request a\nhearing, but reserved its right to one.\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATIONS AND NOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nItems 1,2, and 4 of the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to consider a tank at Yankee station\nto be a breakout tank under 49 C.F.R. Part 195. Consequently, the Notice alleged that Respondent\nviolated the following sections of Part 195, as more fully described in the Notice:\n49 C.F.R. 5 192.402(a) - failing to prepare written procedures for the operation and\nmaintenance ofthe breakout tank in compliance with applicable safety regulations under Part\n195;\n49 C.F.R. $ 195.404(axl) - failing to maintain current maps and records that identify the\ntank at Yankee station as a breakout tank subiect to Part 195; and\n\n\n\n2\n49 C.F.R. $ 195.432 - failing to inspect the Yankee station breakout tank at intervals not\nexceeding l5 months, but at least once each calendar year.\nIn its response, Respondent asserted that the tank at Yankee station is not a breakout tank as the term\nisdefinedin$ 195.2. Section lg5.2definesabreakouttankas\"atankusedto(a)relievesurgesin\na hazardous liquid pipeline system or (b) receive and store hazardous liquid transported by a pipeline\nfor reinjection and continued transportation by pipeline.\"\nRespondent explained that the tank at Yankee station is used to equalize pressure between the liquid\npropane delivery line and the on-site storage tanks prior to the product being introduced into the peak\nshaving facility. After peak shaving operations are complete, the liquid propane remaining in the\ntank is pumped into on-site storage and the tank remains empty until the next operation. A conkol\nvalve upstream of the process tank regulates the amount ofproduct within the tank. A pump controls\nthe pressure of the supply line to within the line's maximum operating pressure. The supply line is\nalso equipped with relief valves. As such, Respondent contended that the tank is more accurately\ndefined as a process tank or a process vessel rather than abreakout tank.\nBased on the information submitted by Respondent indicating the tank neither relieves surges in the\npipeline system, norreceives and stores hazardous liquid forreinjection andcontinuedtransportation\nbypipeline, I find that the subject tank is more accurately designated a process tank or process\nvessel, rather than a breakout tank. Items 1,2, and 4 of the Notice are therefore withdrawn.\nConsequently, I find Respondent's procedures do not require amendment as proposed in the Notice\nof Amendment. Respondent need not take any further action with respect to the matters in this case\npertaining to Items 1,2, and 4.\nWARNING ITEM\nThe Notice did not propose a civil penalty or corrective action for Item 3, but warned Respondent\nthat it should take appropriate corrective action to correct the item. The warning was for -\n49 C.F.R. $ 195.428 - failing to inspect and test the relief valves and thermal reliefs at\nTodhunter, Yankee, and Belbrook facilities at intervals not exceedingTYzmonths, but at least\ntwice each calendar year.\nThe Regional Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following corrective actions to\naddress the cited item: Respondent has initiated inspections of the relief devices at 7Yz-month\nintervals, but at least twice each calendar year; and Respondent has revised its Operation and\nMaintenance Plan to require that the relief devices be inspected at 7Yz-month intervals, but at least\ntwice each calendar year.' Respondent is again wamed that if OPS finds a violation for this item in\na subsequent inspection, enforcement action will be taken.\n\n\n\n3\nUnder 49 C.F.R. $ 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this\nFinal Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this Final\nOrderandmustcontainabriefstatementoftheissue(s). Thetermsoftheorderremaininfulleffect\nunless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this\nFinal Order are effective on receipt.\nStacey\nAssociate istrator\nfor Pipeli Safety\nDate Issued","truncated":false,"body_characters":6987}