{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 320201010W","title":"CITY OF DULUTH PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2020-10-29","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.931(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320201010w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320201010w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320201010w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320201010W","body":"Warning Letter involving CITY OF DULUTH PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.931(b). The case was opened on 2020-10-29 and is reported as closed as of 2020-10-29. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n320201010W_Warning Letter_10292020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320201010W/320201010W_Warning%20Letter_10292020.pdf\n\n320201010W_Warning Letter_10292020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320201010W/320201010W_Warning%20Letter_10292020_text.pdf\n\n320201010W_Warning Letter_10292020_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: jbenning@DuluthMN.gov\nOctober 29, 2020\nJim Benning\nDirector\nCity of Duluth Public Works & Utilities\nCity Hall, Room 274\n411 West First Street\nDuluth, MN 55802\nCPF 3-2020-1010W\nDear Mr. Benning:\nBetween August 6 and 8, 2019, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) inspected\nthe 10-inch natural gas transmission pipeline, which is operated and maintained by the City of\nDuluth, and runs from the Great Lakes Gas transmission interconnect in Douglas County, WI to\nthe City of Duluth’s regulator station in St. Louis County, MN.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed a probable violation of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The item(s) inspected\nand the probable violation(s) are:\n1. §192.931 How may Confirmatory Direct Assessment (CDA) be used?\nAn operator using the confirmatory direct assessment (CDA) method as allowed in\n§192.937 must have a plan that meets the requirements of this section and of\n§§192.925 (ECDA) and §192.927 (ICDA).\n\n\n\n(a)…\n(b) External corrosion plan. An operator's CDA plan for identifying external\ncorrosion must comply with §192.925 with the following exceptions.\n(1) The procedures for indirect examination may allow use of only one indirect\nexamination tool suitable for the application.\n(2) The procedures for direct examination and remediation must provide that—\n(i) All immediate action indications must be excavated for each ECDA region; and\n(ii) At least one high risk indication that meets the criteria of scheduled action must\nbe excavated in each ECDA region.\nThe City of Duluth failed to comply with § 192.931 because its confirmatory direct assessment\n(CDA) plan for external corrosion did not comply with the requirements in § 192.925. Section\n192.925 delineates requirements for using the ECDA process. Specifically, § 192.925(b) states\nthat “[a]n operator that uses direct assessment to assess the threat of external corrosion must\nfollow the requirements in this section, in ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see §\n192.7), section 6.4, and in NACE SP0502 (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7).” During the\ninspection, the City of Duluth provided a 2017 CDA report that was prepared by its contractor\nand identified multiple external corrosion direct assessment (ECDA) regions, which included\nabove grade piping at the regulator station in St. Louis County. However, NACE SP0502-2010\nis only applicable to buried onshore ferrous pipeline systems. Therefore, any assessments\nperformed on above grade piping are not considered valid using ECDA.\nFurthermore, the 2017 CDA report deemed any excavations to below grade pipe section were\nunnecessary based on the results of the indirect inspection surveys. According to Sections 5.1.3\nand 5.3.1.1 of NACE SP0502-2010 at least one excavation or direct examination is required.\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. We\nhave 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 item(s) identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in\nthe City of Duluth 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 3-2020-1010W. 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\n2\n\n\n\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,\nGregory A. Ochs\nDirector, Central Region, OPS\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n3","truncated":false,"body_characters":5603}