{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520060020","title":"CITY OF VERNON — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2006-06-06","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.487(b), 192.605(b)(9), 192.613(b), 192.615(b)(2), 192.616, 192.703(b), 192.719(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520060020.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520060020.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520060020","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520060020","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving CITY OF VERNON. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.487(b),  192.605(b)(9),  192.613(b),  192.615(b)(2),  192.616,  192.703(b),  192.719(b). The case was opened on 2006-06-06 and is reported as closed as of 2010-09-16. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520060020_closure letter_09162010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520060020/520060020_closure%20letter_09162010.pdf\n\n520060020_closure letter_09162010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520060020/520060020_closure%20letter_09162010_text.pdf\n\n520060020_FinalOrder_07092009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520060020/520060020_FinalOrder_07092009.pdf\n\n520060020_FinalOrder_07092009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520060020/520060020_FinalOrder_07092009_text.pdf\n\n520060020_FinalOrder_07092009_text.pdf\n\nJUL 09 2009\nMr. Donal O’Callaghan\nDirector, Light & Power Department\nCity of Vernon\n4305 Santa Fe Avenue\nVernon, CA 90058\nRe: CPF No. 5-2006-0020\nDear Mr. O’Callaghan:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation\nand specifies actions to be taken to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms\nof the compliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director, Western Region,\nthis enforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of this Final Order constitutes service of\nthat document under 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: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 0390 0005 6162 5593]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\n__________________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nCity of Vernon, ) CPF No. 5-2006-0020\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n__________________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn June 21, 2005, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\ninspected the facilities and records of City of Vernon (Vernon or Respondent), the\noperator of a municipal gas distribution system in Southern California. As a result of that\ninspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to Vernon, by letter\ndated June 6, 2006, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order\n(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nVernon had violated Part 192 of the pipeline safety regulations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Vernon to take certain measures to correct those alleged violations.\nVernon responded to the Notice by letters dated June 15, 2006, and August 11, 2006\n(collectively, Response). Respondent did not contest the allegations of violation, but it\ndid describe the corrective measures it had already taken. Vernon did not request a\nhearing and has therefore waived that right.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.605(b)(8) and (b) (9),\nwhich state, in relevant part:\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance,\nand emergencies.\n(a) . . .\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual\nrequired by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures\nfor the following, if applicable, to provide safety during\nmaintenance and operations.\n\n\n\n2\n(1) . . .\n(8) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator\npersonnel to determine the effectiveness, and adequacy of the\nprocedures used in normal operation and maintenance and\nmodifying the procedures when deficiencies are found.\n(9) Taking adequate precautions in excavated trenches to\nprotect personnel from the hazards of unsafe accumulations of\nvapor or gas, and making available when needed at the excavation,\nemergency rescue equipment, including a breathing apparatus and,\na rescue harness and line.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Vernon’s Operations, Maintenance, and Emergencies\nManual (Manual) failed to specify its process for conducting periodic reviews of its\npersonnel and procedures as required by § 192.605(b)(8). Respondent does not dispute\nthat allegation. Accordingly, I find that Vernon violated § 192.605(b)(8) by failing to\nhave in its Manual a prescribed process for “[p]eriodically reviewing the work done by\noperator personnel to determine the effectiveness, and adequacy of the procedures used in\nnormal operation and maintenance and modifying the procedures when deficiencies are\nfound.”\nThe Notice further alleged that Vernon’s Manual failed to specify its precautionary\nprocedures for personnel performing work in excavated trenches as required by §\n192.605(b)(9). Respondent does not dispute that allegation. Therefore, I find that\nVernon violated § 192.605(b)(9) by failing to have in its Manual a prescribed procedure\nfor “[t]aking adequate precautions in excavated trenches to protect personnel from the\nhazards of unsafe accumulations of vapor or gas, and making available when needed at\nthe excavation, emergency rescue equipment, including a breathing apparatus and, a\nrescue harness and line.”\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.613(b), which states:\n§ 192.613 Continuing surveillance.\n(a) . . .\n(b) If a segment of pipeline is determined to be in\nunsatisfactory condition but no immediate hazard exists, the\noperator shall initiate a program to recondition or phase out the\nsegment involved, or, if the segment cannot be reconditioned or\nphased out, reduce the maximum allowable operating pressure in\naccordance with § 192.619 (a) and (b).\nIn particular, the Notice alleged that Vernon did not have a program for reconditioning or\nphasing out any segments of its pipeline that are in an “unsatisfactory condition.” The\nNotice further alleged that Vernon did not, in the event that reconditioning or phasing out\nis unavailable, have an alternative program for reducing the maximum allowable\noperating pressure on any such pipeline segments. Respondent does not dispute that\nallegation. Consequently, I find that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.613(b) by failing\n\n\n\n3\nto “initiate a program to recondition or phase out” any segments of its pipeline\n“determined to be in unsatisfactory condition, . . . or, if the segment cannot reconditioned\nor phased out, [to] reduce the maximum allowable operating pressure in accordance with\n§ 192.619 (a) and (b).”\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(b)(2), which\nstates:\n§ 192.615 Emergency plans.\n(a) . . .\n(b) Each operator shall:\n(1) . . .\n(2) Train the appropriate operating personnel to assure that\nthey are knowledgeable of the emergency procedures and verify\nthat the training is effective.\nNamely, the Notice alleged that Vernon’s emergency plan did not include a written\nprocedure to train appropriate operator personnel about its emergency procedures.\nRespondent does not dispute that allegation. Accordingly, I find that Vernon violated 49\nC.F.R. § 192.615(b)(2) by failing to have in its emergency plan a written procedure to\n“[t]rain the appropriate operating personnel to assure that they are knowledgeable of the\nemergency procedures and verify that the training is effective.”\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616 (2004),\nstated:\n1 which\n§ 192.616 Public education.\nEach operator shall establish a continuing educational\nprogram to enable customers, the public, appropriate government\norganizations, and persons engaged in excavation related activities\nto recognize a gas pipeline emergency for the purpose of reporting\nit to the operator or the appropriate public officials. The program\nand the media used must be as comprehensive as necessary to\nreach all areas in which the operator transports gas. The program\nmust be conducted in English and in other languages commonly\n1 On the day before the OPS inspection, a new version of 49 C.F.R. § 192.616 went into effect. See 70 Fed.\nReg. 28842 (May 19, 2005); 70 Fed. Reg. 35041 (June 16, 2005) (amending 49 C.F.R. § 192.616, effective\nJune 20, 2005). Like its predecessor, that regulation required “each pipeline operator” to “develop and\nimplement a written continuing public education program,” but it also imposed a number of additional\nrequirements. 49 C.F.R. § 192.616 (2005); see also 72 Fed. Reg. 70808 (December 13, 2007) (amending\n49 C.F.R. § 192.616, effective January 14, 2008). The Notice did not allege that Vernon violated the new\nversion of § 192.616. Nevertheless, PHMSA expects—and specifically requires as a condition of the\nCompliance Order associated with this violation—that Vernon’s continuing public education program be in\ncompliance with all of the requirements presently imposed in Part 192 of the pipeline safety regulations,\nincluding the current version of 49 C.F.R. § 192.616.\n\n\n\n4\nunderstood by a significant number and concentration of the non-\nEnglish speaking population in the operator’s area.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Vernon’s Manual did not have a continuing public\neducation program as required by § 192.616. Respondent does not dispute that\nallegation. Therefore, I find that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616 (2004) by failing\nto “establish a continuing educational program to enable customers, the public,\nappropriate government organizations, and persons engaged in excavation related\nactivities to recognize a gas pipeline emergency for the purpose of reporting it to the\noperator or the appropriate public officials.”\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.703(b), which states:\n§ 192.703 General.\n(a) . . .\n(b) Each segment of pipeline that becomes unsafe must be\nreplaced, repaired, or removed from service.\nIn particular, the Notice alleged that Vernon’s Manual did not specify any procedure for\nreplacing, repairing, or removing any unsafe segments of its pipeline. Respondent does\nnot dispute that allegation. Consequently, I find that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. §\n192.703(b) by failing to adopt a procedure to ensure that “[e]ach segment of pipeline that\nbecomes unsafe” is “replaced, repaired, or removed from service.”\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.719, which states:\n§ 192.719 Transmission lines: Testing of repairs.\n(a) Testing of replacement pipe. If a segment of\ntransmission line is repaired by cutting out the damaged portion of\nthe pipe as a cylinder, the replacement pipe must be tested to the\npressure required for a new line installed in the same location. This\ntest may be made on the pipe before it is installed.\n(b) Testing of repairs made by welding. Each repair made\nby welding in accordance with §§ 192.713, 192.715, and 192.717\nmust be examined in accordance with § 192.241.\nNamely, the Notice alleged that Vernon’s Manual did not include a procedure for testing\nreplacement pipe or repairs made by welding. Respondent does not dispute that\nallegation. Accordingly, I find that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.719 by failing to\nhave a written procedure for testing replacement pipe or repairs made by welding.\nItem 7: Finally, the Notice alleged that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.487, which\nstates:\n§ 192.487 Remedial measures: Distribution lines other than\ncast iron or ductile iron lines.\n\n\n\n5\n(a) General corrosion. Except for cast iron or ductile iron\npipe, each segment of generally corroded distribution line pipe\nwith a remaining wall thickness less than that required for the\nMAOP of the pipeline, or a remaining wall thickness less than 30\npercent of the nominal wall thickness, must be replaced. However,\ncorroded pipe may be repaired by a method that reliable\nengineering tests and analyses show can permanently restore the\nserviceability of the pipe. Corrosion pitting so closely grouped as\nto affect the overall strength of the pipe is considered general\ncorrosion for the purpose of this paragraph.\n(b) Localized corrosion pitting. Except for cast iron or\nductile iron pipe, each segment of distribution line pipe with\nlocalized corrosion pitting to a degree where leakage might result\nmust be replaced or repaired.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Vernon’s Manual did not include a procedure for\nidentifying and, if necessary, repairing or replacing each segment of its distribution line\npipe that suffered from general or localized corrosion. Respondent does not dispute that\nallegation. Therefore, I find that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.487 by failing to have\na procedure for identifying and, if necessary, repairing or replacing each segment of its\ndistribution line pipe that suffered from general or localized corrosion.\nThese findings of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent\nenforcement action taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 through 7 for violations\nby Respondent of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.487, 192.605(b)(8) and (b)(9), 192.613(b),\n192.615(b)(2), 192.616, 192.703(b), and 192.719. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each\nperson who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline\nfacility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under\nchapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217,\nRespondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the\npipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations. Respondent must:\n1. With respect to Item 4, Respondent must demonstrate compliance with 49\nC.F.R. § 192.616 by submitting documentation of its continuing public\neducation and awareness program to the Director at the address listed below\nwithin sixty (60) of the issuance of this Final Order.\n2. Respondent must maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Chris\nHoidal, Director, Western Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration, 12300 West Dakota Avenue, Suite 110, Lakewood, Colorado\n\n\n\n6\n80228. Respondent must report costs reported in two categories: 1) total cost\nassociated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and\nanalyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other\nchanges to pipeline infrastructure.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items\nupon a written request timely submitted by the Respondent demonstrating good cause for\nan extension.\nThe Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions to address\nsome of the cited violations. Specifically, Vernon revised its Manual, effective\nAugust 11, 2006, to address the violations in Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of this Order, and a\nMarch 19, 2007 OPS inspection confirmed that Vernon had attained compliance with the\nrelevant regulations. Accordingly, since Respondent has achieved compliance with\nrespect to these violations, the compliance terms are not included in this Order.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil\npenalties not to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues\nor in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United\nStates.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for\nReconsideration of this Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of\nRespondent’s receipt of this Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the\nissue(s). The terms of the order, including any required corrective action and amendment\nof procedures, shall remain in full force and effect unless the Associate Administrator,\nupon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be\neffective upon receipt.\n___________________________________ ______________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n520060020_closure letter_09162010_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nSeptember 16, 2010\nMr. Carlos Fandino\nDirector of Light and Power\nCity of Vernon\n4305 Santa Fe Avenue\nVernon, CA 90058\nRe: CPF 5-2006-0020\nCase Closure Letter\nDear Mr. Fandino:\nOn June 21, 2005, a representative from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), pursuant to chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, conducted a pipeline safety inspection of\nyour gas pipeline system in Vernon, California. As a result of the inspection, the City of Vernon was\nissued a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order requiring certain safety\nimprovements be completed.\nThe City of Vernon responded to the Notice by letters dated June 15, 2006, and August 11, 2006. Based\non these responses, a Final Order was issued by PHMSA’s Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety on\nJuly 09, 2009. At that time, the Final Order recognized completion of all of the mandated Corrective\nActions except for Item No. 4. Item 4 required the City of Vernon to submit documentation of its\ncontinuing public education and awareness program to me within 60 days.\nThe City of Vernon responded in a letter dated May 12, 2010 with evidence to demonstrate that\ncompliance with Item No. 4 of the Final Order was achieved in September 2009. My staff reviewed the\ndocumentation and it appears that compliance was achieved within the required time.\nThis letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank you for your\ncooperation.\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","truncated":false,"body_characters":17835}