{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520045022","title":"HECO - HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2004-07-09","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(b)(3), 195.452(e)(1), 195.452(f)(1), 195.452(f)(4), 195.452(f)(7), 195.452(i)(1), 195.452(j)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520045022.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520045022.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520045022","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520045022","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving HECO - HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195,  195.452(b)(3),  195.452(e)(1),  195.452(f)(1),  195.452(f)(4),  195.452(f)(7),  195.452(i)(1),  195.452(j)(1). The case was opened on 2004-07-09 and is reported as closed as of 2006-09-20. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520045022_Final Order_09202006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520045022/520045022_Final%20Order_09202006.pdf\n\nCPF_NO_5-2004-5022.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520045022/CPF_NO_5-2004-5022.pdf\n\n520045022_Final Order_09202006.pdf\n\nU.S. Department 400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nof Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\nSEP 2 0 2006\nMr. Thomas C. Simmons, P.E.\nVice President Power Supply\nHawaii Electric Company, Inc.\nP.O. Box 2750\n170 Ala Moana Boulevard\nHonolulu, HI 96840-000 1\nRe: CPF No. 5-2004-5022\nDear Mr. Simmons:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the\nabove-referenced case. It withdraws one of the allegations of violation, makes findings of\nviolation and finds that you have completed the actions specified in the Notice required to\ncomply with the pipeline safety regulations. The Final Order also finds that you have addressed\nthe inadequacies in your procedures that were cited in the Notice of Amendment. This case is\nnow closed. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nSincerely,\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Chris Hoidal, P.E., Director Western Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIEDUAIL -RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\nIn the Matter of 1\n)\nHawaii Electric Company, Inc. CPF NO. 4-2004-5022\nRespondent )\nFINAL ORDER\nOn March 25 and 26,2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 9 601 17, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA'S)' Office of Pipeline Safety conducted\nan on-site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's Integrity Management Program (IMP) in\nHilo, Hawaii. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, PHMSA, issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated July 9,2004, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Compliance\nOrder, and Notice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. tj 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that Respondent committed violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, and proposed that\nRespondent take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also alleged\ninadequacies in Respondent's IMP and proposed to require amendment of Respondent's\nprocedures to comply with the requirements of 49 C.F.R. 9 195.452.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated August 13,2004~, as supplemented by letter\ndated April 13,2005 (Response). Respondent contested one of the allegations, offered\ninformation to explain the allegations, and described the corrective measures it has taken with\nrespect to the Notice. Respondent did not request a hearing, and therefore has waived its right to\none.\n' Effective February 20,2005, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) succeeded\nResearch and Special Programs Administration as the agency responsible for regulating safety in pipeline\ntransportation and hazardous materials transportation. See, section 108 of the Norman Y. Mineta Research and\nSpecial Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-426, 118 Stat. 2423-2429 (November 30,2004)). See also, 70\nFed. Reg. 8299 (February 18, 2005) redelegating the pipeline safety authorities and functions to the PHMSA\nAdministrator.\nIt appears that due to mailing and as indicated, Respondent received the Notice was received on July 15,2004.\n\n\n\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\n(Uncontested)\nIn its Response, Respondent did not contest several of the alleged violations in the Notice.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violated the following sections of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as\nmore fully described in the Notice:\nItem 2a- 49 C.F.R. 5 195.452(b)(3)-failing to include in its IMP a requirement to\nassess the pre- 1970 low-frequency electric resistance welding pipe seam according to the\nrule requirements;\nItem 2 d 4 9 C.F.R. 5 195.452(b)(3)-failing to include in its IMP any requirements to\ninvestigate dents; furthermore, the planned assessment did not contain a geometry tool to\nassess dents;\nItem 5 a 4 9 C.F.R. 5 195.452(i)(1 )--failing to have in place a process to evaluate\nwhether or not any preventive or mitigative actions could be employed to reduce the risk\nof pipeline failure consequences to the public; and\nItem 5 4 9 C.F.R. 5 195.452(i)(l)--failing to have in place a process to evaluate\nwhether or not any emergency flow restricting devices could be added to its pipeline\nsystem to reduce the consequences of a pipeline failure to the public.\nThese findings of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION\nThe Notice Item lc alleged that Respondent had violated 49 C.F.R. 5 195.452 (f)(l), by failing to\nconduct an overland spread analysis for a potential pipeline failure. In its response, Respondent\nsubmitted information demonstrating that conducting additional overland spread analysis\nmodeling under the circumstances is unnecessary. As the explanations, information, and other\nmaterials set forth in the Response indicate, Respondent's activities and analysis reach the same\nresult that modeling would. The Western Region Director notes that due to the unique operating\nenvironment that Respondent's pipeline operates within this analysis may have limited value;\nhowever, the Western Region Director points out that if this pipeline was to be moved inland or\nRespondent was to acquire an inland system, the analysis would be required. Based on the\ninformation at hand, I am withdrawing this allegation of violation.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2(a), 2(d), 5(a), and 5(e) in the\nNotice. Under 49 U.S.C. 5 601 18(a), each person who engages in the transportation of\nhazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under Chapter 601. With respect to these Items,\n\n\n\nRespondent stated in its Response that it would incorporate the requirements into its IMP and\nthat any results or analyses would be forthcoming and provided to PHMSA. The Regional\nDirector has reviewed the Response and has determined that the Response addresses the\nproposed compliance actions. Accordingly, since compliance has been achieved with respect to\nthese violations, it is not necessary to include the compliance terms in this order.\nAMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES\nThe Notice alleged inadequacies in Respondent's procedures/plans and proposed to require\namendment of Respondent's procedures to comply with the requirements of\n49 C.F.R. $ 8 195.452(0(1), 195.452(b)(3), 195.452(0(4), 195.452(e)(l), 195.452(i)(l),\n195.4520)(1), and 195.452(f)(7).\nIn its response, Respondent submitted copies of its amended procedures, which the Director,\nWestern Region, PHMSA reviewed. Accordingly, based on the results of this review, I find that\nRespondent's original procedures as described in the Notice were inadequate to ensure safe\noperation of its pipeline system, but that Respondent has corrected the identified inadequacies.\nNo need exists to issue and order directing amendment.\nWARNING ITEMS\nThe Notice did not propose a civil penalty or corrective action for Item 3(b) and 4(b). Therefore,\nthese are considered to be warning items. Respondent is warned that if it does not take\nappropriate action to correct these items, enforcement will be taken if a subsequent inspection\nreveals a violation.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. $ 190.2 15, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this\nFinal Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. All other terms of the order,\nincluding any required corrective action and amendment of procedures, remain in full effect\nunless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this\nFinal Order are effective on receipt.\nDate Issued\nP ~ c t i n ~ Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":8714}