{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520060001","title":"ISLAND ENERGY — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2006-02-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.809(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520060001.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520060001.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520060001","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520060001","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ISLAND ENERGY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.809(d). The case was opened on 2006-02-13 and is reported as closed as of 2010-10-08. Proposed civil penalty: $5,000. Assessed civil penalty: $0. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520060001_Final Order_10082010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520060001/520060001_Final%20Order_10082010.pdf\n\n520060001_Final Order_10082010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520060001/520060001_Final%20Order_10082010_text.pdf\n\n520060001_Final Order_10082010_text.pdf\n\nOCT 8 2010\nDr. Dean R. Tibbs\nMare Island Operating Company, Inc.\nc/o Advanced Energy Strategies\n1800 Sutter St., Suite 870\nConcord, CA 94520\nMr. David Elder\nGeneral Manager, Mare Island\nIsland Energy\n440 Walnut Avenue\nVallejo, CA 94592\nRe: CPF No. 5-2006-0001\nDear Dr. Tibbs and Mr. Elder:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, determines that Mare Island Operating Company, Inc., and Island Energy have\ncompleted the actions specified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations, and\nwithdraws the proposed civil penalty. Therefore, this case is now closed. Service of the Final\nOrder by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided\nunder 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA\nMr. Garrett Evans, General Manager\nPittsburg Power Company\nCity of Pittsburg\n65 Civic Avenue\nPittsburg, CA 94565\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7009 1410 0000 2472 2940]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n__________________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\n)\n)\nMare Island Operating Company, Inc., )\nRespondent, )\nand )\n)\n)\n)\nPittsburg Power Company, )\nd/b/a Island Energy, )\na division of the City of Pittsburg, California, )\na municipal corporation. )\n__________________________________________)\n) CPF No. 5-2006-0001\nFINAL ORDER\nOn November 16, 2005, 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 a municipal gas\nsystem operated by Mare Island Operating Company, Inc. (MIOC or Respondent), in Vallejo,\nCalifornia. At the time, MIOC operated the facility pursuant to an agreement with the facility’s\nowner, Pittsburg Power Company (PPC), doing business as Island Energy, a public utility owned\nby the City of Pittsburg, California, and providing retail electric and natural gas services to Mare\nIsland, California.\n1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to MIOC, by\nletter dated February 13, 2006, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that MIOC had violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.809 and proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $5,000 for the alleged violation. The Notice also proposed ordering MIOC to take\ncertain measures to correct the alleged violation.\nMIOC responded to the Notice by letters dated March 28, 2006, and June 30, 2006 (collectively,\nResponse). MIOC did not contest the allegation but objected to the civil penalty. The company\nagreed to satisfy the terms of the proposed compliance order and described the steps it planned to\ntake to do so. MIOC did not request a hearing and therefore waived its right to one.\n1 Specifically, PPC is a “joint powers authority,” a public entity permitted under California law, and owned by the\nCity of Pittsburg and the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Pittsburg. See http://www.pittsburgpowerco.com;\nhttp://www.islandenergy.com (last accessed Sept. 1, 2010).\n\n\n\n2\nThe proposed compliance order required MIOC to develop and submit certain written materials\nand records to PHMSA, but the company failed to do so. By letter dated December 8, 2009, PPC\nexplained that the City of Pittsburg had taken over operations of the Mare Island facility and\nstated that it had come to the company’s attention that MIOC had never submitted the written\nmaterials and records required by the proposed compliance order. PPC stated that MIOC had\nfinished developing these materials in May 2007 and attached a copy of the materials with the\nletter.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, MIOC did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part\n192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that MIOC violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.809, which states:\n§ 192.809 General.\n(a) Operators must have a written qualification program by April 27,\n2001. The program must be available for review by the Administrator or\nby a state agency participating under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 if the\nprogram is under the authority of that state agency.\n(b) Operators must complete the qualification of individuals\nperforming covered tasks by October 28, 2002.\n(c) Work performance history review may be used as a sole evaluation\nmethod for individuals who were performing a covered task prior to\nOctober 26, 1999.\n(d) After October 28, 2002, work performance history may not be\nused as a sole evaluation method.\n(e) After December 16, 2004, observation of on-the-job performance\nmay not be used as the sole method of evaluation.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.809 by failing to have a written\nqualification program in place as of the date of the OPS inspection. MIOC did not contest this\nallegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.809 by failing to have a written qualification program in\nplace as of the date of the OPS inspection.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against MIOC.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 of the Notice for violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 192.809. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation\nof gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable\nsafety standards established under chapter 601. The Director indicates that MIOC and PPC have\ntaken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance order:\n\n\n\n3\nWith respect to the violation of § 192.809 (Item 1), MIOC developed, and PPC\nsubmitted, a written qualification program that, upon review, satisfies the\nrequirements of the regulation.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,\nthe compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $5,000 for the violation cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.809, for failing to have a written qualification program in place as of the date of the OPS\ninspection. Island Energy contends that the proposed penalty should be waived, as this was the\nfirst OPS inspection of its facilities since the company began operations on Mare Island in April\n1997. Respondent further states that the anticipated cost of the compliance order, $30,000,\nalready constitutes a significant investment of its scarce resources.\nThis case presents unusual circumstances. On the one hand, a small public utility such as Island\nEnergy, like any other pipeline operator, is subject to potential civil penalties for violating the\nPipeline Safety Laws and Regulations. It is critical that municipal gas systems, like private\nutilities, comply with these safety regulations in order to protect their own personnel and the\npublic from the risk of pipeline accidents. On the other hand, it appears in this case that MIOC is\nno longer doing business as a pipeline operator and that PPC was not served with the Notice and\nnotified that it could face the possible imposition of a civil penalty. Accordingly, I find that\nthese circumstances constitute “such other matters as justice may require,” and that they\nnecessitate the withdrawal of the proposed penalty of $5,000.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":9738}