# CITY OF VERNON — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

520060020_closure letter_09162010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520060020/520060020_closure%20letter_09162010.pdf

520060020_closure letter_09162010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520060020/520060020_closure%20letter_09162010_text.pdf

520060020_FinalOrder_07092009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520060020/520060020_FinalOrder_07092009.pdf

520060020_FinalOrder_07092009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520060020/520060020_FinalOrder_07092009_text.pdf

520060020_FinalOrder_07092009_text.pdf

JUL 09 2009
Mr. Donal O’Callaghan
Director, Light & Power Department
City of Vernon
4305 Santa Fe Avenue
Vernon, CA 90058
Re: CPF No. 5-2006-0020
Dear Mr. O’Callaghan:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation
and specifies actions to be taken to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms
of the compliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director, Western Region,
this enforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of this Final Order constitutes service of
that document under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, OPS
CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 0390 0005 6162 5593]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, DC 20590
__________________________________________
In the Matter of )
City of Vernon, ) CPF No. 5-2006-0020
)
)
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On June 21, 2005, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
inspected the facilities and records of City of Vernon (Vernon or Respondent), the
operator of a municipal gas distribution system in Southern California. As a result of that
inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to Vernon, by letter
dated June 6, 2006, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order
(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that
Vernon had violated Part 192 of the pipeline safety regulations. The Notice also
proposed ordering Vernon to take certain measures to correct those alleged violations.
Vernon responded to the Notice by letters dated June 15, 2006, and August 11, 2006
(collectively, Response). Respondent did not contest the allegations of violation, but it
did describe the corrective measures it had already taken. Vernon did not request a
hearing and has therefore waived that right.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.605(b)(8) and (b) (9),
which state, in relevant part:
§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance,
and emergencies.
(a) . . .
(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual
required by paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures
for the following, if applicable, to provide safety during
maintenance and operations.



2
(1) . . .
(8) Periodically reviewing the work done by operator
personnel to determine the effectiveness, and adequacy of the
procedures used in normal operation and maintenance and
modifying the procedures when deficiencies are found.
(9) Taking adequate precautions in excavated trenches to
protect personnel from the hazards of unsafe accumulations of
vapor or gas, and making available when needed at the excavation,
emergency rescue equipment, including a breathing apparatus and,
a rescue harness and line.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Vernon’s Operations, Maintenance, and Emergencies
Manual (Manual) failed to specify its process for conducting periodic reviews of its
personnel and procedures as required by § 192.605(b)(8). Respondent does not dispute
that allegation. Accordingly, I find that Vernon violated § 192.605(b)(8) by failing to
have in its Manual a prescribed process for “[p]eriodically reviewing the work done by
operator personnel to determine the effectiveness, and adequacy of the procedures used in
normal operation and maintenance and modifying the procedures when deficiencies are
found.”
The Notice further alleged that Vernon’s Manual failed to specify its precautionary
procedures for personnel performing work in excavated trenches as required by §
192.605(b)(9). Respondent does not dispute that allegation. Therefore, I find that
Vernon violated § 192.605(b)(9) by failing to have in its Manual a prescribed procedure
for “[t]aking adequate precautions in excavated trenches to protect personnel from the
hazards of unsafe accumulations of vapor or gas, and making available when needed at
the excavation, emergency rescue equipment, including a breathing apparatus and, a
rescue harness and line.”
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.613(b), which states:
§ 192.613 Continuing surveillance.
(a) . . .
(b) If a segment of pipeline is determined to be in
unsatisfactory condition but no immediate hazard exists, the
operator shall initiate a program to recondition or phase out the
segment involved, or, if the segment cannot be reconditioned or
phased out, reduce the maximum allowable operating pressure in
accordance with § 192.619 (a) and (b).
In particular, the Notice alleged that Vernon did not have a program for reconditioning or
phasing out any segments of its pipeline that are in an “unsatisfactory condition.” The
Notice further alleged that Vernon did not, in the event that reconditioning or phasing out
is unavailable, have an alternative program for reducing the maximum allowable
operating pressure on any such pipeline segments. Respondent does not dispute that
allegation. Consequently, I find that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.613(b) by failing



3
to “initiate a program to recondition or phase out” any segments of its pipeline
“determined to be in unsatisfactory condition, . . . or, if the segment cannot reconditioned
or phased out, [to] reduce the maximum allowable operating pressure in accordance with
§ 192.619 (a) and (b).”
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(b)(2), which
states:
§ 192.615 Emergency plans.
(a) . . .
(b) Each operator shall:
(1) . . .
(2) Train the appropriate operating personnel to assure that
they are knowledgeable of the emergency procedures and verify
that the training is effective.
Namely, the Notice alleged that Vernon’s emergency plan did not include a written
procedure to train appropriate operator personnel about its emergency procedures.
Respondent does not dispute that allegation. Accordingly, I find that Vernon violated 49
C.F.R. § 192.615(b)(2) by failing to have in its emergency plan a written procedure to
“[t]rain the appropriate operating personnel to assure that they are knowledgeable of the
emergency procedures and verify that the training is effective.”
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616 (2004),
stated:
1 which
§ 192.616 Public education.
Each operator shall establish a continuing educational
program to enable customers, the public, appropriate government
organizations, and persons engaged in excavation related activities
to recognize a gas pipeline emergency for the purpose of reporting
it to the operator or the appropriate public officials. The program
and the media used must be as comprehensive as necessary to
reach all areas in which the operator transports gas. The program
must be conducted in English and in other languages commonly
1 On the day before the OPS inspection, a new version of 49 C.F.R. § 192.616 went into effect. See 70 Fed.
Reg. 28842 (May 19, 2005); 70 Fed. Reg. 35041 (June 16, 2005) (amending 49 C.F.R. § 192.616, effective
June 20, 2005). Like its predecessor, that regulation required “each pipeline operator” to “develop and
implement a written continuing public education program,” but it also imposed a number of additional
requirements. 49 C.F.R. § 192.616 (2005); see also 72 Fed. Reg. 70808 (December 13, 2007) (amending
49 C.F.R. § 192.616, effective January 14, 2008). The Notice did not allege that Vernon violated the new
version of § 192.616. Nevertheless, PHMSA expects—and specifically requires as a condition of the
Compliance Order associated with this violation—that Vernon’s continuing public education program be in
compliance with all of the requirements presently imposed in Part 192 of the pipeline safety regulations,
including the current version of 49 C.F.R. § 192.616.



4
understood by a significant number and concentration of the non-
English speaking population in the operator’s area.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Vernon’s Manual did not have a continuing public
education program as required by § 192.616. Respondent does not dispute that
allegation. Therefore, I find that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616 (2004) by failing
to “establish a continuing educational program to enable customers, the public,
appropriate government organizations, and persons engaged in excavation related
activities to recognize a gas pipeline emergency for the purpose of reporting it to the
operator or the appropriate public officials.”
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.703(b), which states:
§ 192.703 General.
(a) . . .
(b) Each segment of pipeline that becomes unsafe must be
replaced, repaired, or removed from service.
In particular, the Notice alleged that Vernon’s Manual did not specify any procedure for
replacing, repairing, or removing any unsafe segments of its pipeline. Respondent does
not dispute that allegation. Consequently, I find that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. §
192.703(b) by failing to adopt a procedure to ensure that “[e]ach segment of pipeline that
becomes unsafe” is “replaced, repaired, or removed from service.”
Item 6: The Notice alleged that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.719, which states:
§ 192.719 Transmission lines: Testing of repairs.
(a) Testing of replacement pipe. If a segment of
transmission line is repaired by cutting out the damaged portion of
the pipe as a cylinder, the replacement pipe must be tested to the
pressure required for a new line installed in the same location. This
test may be made on the pipe before it is installed.
(b) Testing of repairs made by welding. Each repair made
by welding in accordance with §§ 192.713, 192.715, and 192.717
must be examined in accordance with § 192.241.
Namely, the Notice alleged that Vernon’s Manual did not include a procedure for testing
replacement pipe or repairs made by welding. Respondent does not dispute that
allegation. Accordingly, I find that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.719 by failing to
have a written procedure for testing replacement pipe or repairs made by welding.
Item 7: Finally, the Notice alleged that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.487, which
states:
§ 192.487 Remedial measures: Distribution lines other than
cast iron or ductile iron lines.



5
(a) General corrosion. Except for cast iron or ductile iron
pipe, each segment of generally corroded distribution line pipe
with a remaining wall thickness less than that required for the
MAOP of the pipeline, or a remaining wall thickness less than 30
percent of the nominal wall thickness, must be replaced. However,
corroded pipe may be repaired by a method that reliable
engineering tests and analyses show can permanently restore the
serviceability of the pipe. Corrosion pitting so closely grouped as
to affect the overall strength of the pipe is considered general
corrosion for the purpose of this paragraph.
(b) Localized corrosion pitting. Except for cast iron or
ductile iron pipe, each segment of distribution line pipe with
localized corrosion pitting to a degree where leakage might result
must be replaced or repaired.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Vernon’s Manual did not include a procedure for
identifying and, if necessary, repairing or replacing each segment of its distribution line
pipe that suffered from general or localized corrosion. Respondent does not dispute that
allegation. Therefore, I find that Vernon violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.487 by failing to have
a procedure for identifying and, if necessary, repairing or replacing each segment of its
distribution line pipe that suffered from general or localized corrosion.
These findings of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent
enforcement action taken against Respondent.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 through 7 for violations
by Respondent of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.487, 192.605(b)(8) and (b)(9), 192.613(b),
192.615(b)(2), 192.616, 192.703(b), and 192.719. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each
person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline
facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under
chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217,
Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the
pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations. Respondent must:
1. With respect to Item 4, Respondent must demonstrate compliance with 49
C.F.R. § 192.616 by submitting documentation of its continuing public
education and awareness program to the Director at the address listed below
within sixty (60) of the issuance of this Final Order.
2. Respondent must maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs
associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Chris
Hoidal, Director, Western Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, 12300 West Dakota Avenue, Suite 110, Lakewood, Colorado



6
80228. Respondent must report costs reported in two categories: 1) total cost
associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and
analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other
changes to pipeline infrastructure.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items
upon a written request timely submitted by the Respondent demonstrating good cause for
an extension.
The Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions to address
some of the cited violations. Specifically, Vernon revised its Manual, effective
August 11, 2006, to address the violations in Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of this Order, and a
March 19, 2007 OPS inspection confirmed that Vernon had attained compliance with the
relevant regulations. Accordingly, since Respondent has achieved compliance with
respect to these violations, the compliance terms are not included in this Order.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil
penalties not to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues
or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United
States.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for
Reconsideration of this Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of
Respondent’s receipt of this Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the
issue(s). The terms of the order, including any required corrective action and amendment
of procedures, shall remain in full force and effect unless the Associate Administrator,
upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be
effective upon receipt.
___________________________________ ______________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

520060020_closure letter_09162010_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
September 16, 2010
Mr. Carlos Fandino
Director of Light and Power
City of Vernon
4305 Santa Fe Avenue
Vernon, CA 90058
Re: CPF 5-2006-0020
Case Closure Letter
Dear Mr. Fandino:
On June 21, 2005, a representative from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), pursuant to chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, conducted a pipeline safety inspection of
your gas pipeline system in Vernon, California. As a result of the inspection, the City of Vernon was
issued a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order requiring certain safety
improvements be completed.
The City of Vernon responded to the Notice by letters dated June 15, 2006, and August 11, 2006. Based
on these responses, a Final Order was issued by PHMSA’s Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety on
July 09, 2009. At that time, the Final Order recognized completion of all of the mandated Corrective
Actions except for Item No. 4. Item 4 required the City of Vernon to submit documentation of its
continuing public education and awareness program to me within 60 days.
The City of Vernon responded in a letter dated May 12, 2010 with evidence to demonstrate that
compliance with Item No. 4 of the Final Order was achieved in September 2009. My staff reviewed the
documentation and it appears that compliance was achieved within the required time.
This letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Sincerely,
Chris Hoidal
Director, Western Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 17835