{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520121023W","title":"KB PIPELINE — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-11-08","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.616(c), 192.616(i).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520121023w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520121023w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520121023w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520121023W","body":"Warning Letter involving KB PIPELINE. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.616(c),  192.616(i). The case was opened on 2012-11-08 and is reported as closed as of 2012-11-08. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520121023W_Warning Letter_11082012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520121023W/520121023W_Warning%20Letter_11082012.pdf\n\n520121023W_Warning Letter_11082012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520121023W/520121023W_Warning%20Letter_11082012_text.pdf\n\n520121023W_Warning Letter_11082012_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nNovember 8, 2012\nMr. Stephen Hawke\nVice President\nKB Pipeline Company\nPortland General Electric Co.\n3WTC0402\n121 SW Salmon Street\nPortland, OR 97204\nCPF 5-2012-1023W\nDear Mr. Hawke:\nOn September 28-29, 2011, a representative of the Washington Utilities and Transportation\nCommission (WUTC), on behalf of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, conducted a\nPublic Awareness Program Effective Evaluation (PAPEE) of your Kelso-Beaver (KB)\nPipeline located in Cowlitz County, Washington.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed a probable violation of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and\nthe probable violations are:\n1. §192.616 Public Awareness\n(i) The operator's program documentation and evaluation results must be\navailable for periodic review by appropriate regulatory agencies.\nKB Pipeline Company’s previous operator did not have company specific program\ndocumentation of annual evaluations from 2007 through 2010. Per 49 CFR §192.616(c), the\n\n\n\noperator must follow the general program recommendations, including baseline and\nsupplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless the operator provides justification in its\nprogram or procedural manual as to why compliance with all or certain provisions of the\nrecommended practice is not practicable and not necessary for safety.\nAPI RP 1162, Section 8.3 guidance states, “Has the operator performed an audit or review of\nits program implementation annually since it was developed? If not, did the operator provide\njustification in its program or procedural manual?” KB Pipeline Company did not have\ncompany specific program documentation of annual evaluations from 2007 through 2010.\nFurthermore, KB did not have documentation establishing baseline data needed to determine\nthe effectiveness of their Public Awareness Program. KB’s new consultant responsible for\ntheir PAPEE is expected to have enough information to determine a statistical sample size in\nCY 2012.\n2. § 192.616 (c) Public Awareness\n(c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations, including\nbaseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless the operator\nprovides justification in its program or procedural manual as to why compliance\nwith all or certain provisions of the recommended practice is not practicable and\nnot necessary for safety.\nPer 49 CFR §192.616(c), the operator must follow the general program recommendations,\nincluding baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless the operator\nprovides justification in its program or procedural manual as to why compliance with all or\ncertain provisions of the recommended practice is not practicable and not necessary for safety.\nAPI RP 1162, Section 8.4 guidance states, “Did the operator perform an effectiveness\nevaluation of its program (or no more than 4 years following the effective date of program\nimplementation) to assess its program effectiveness in all areas along all systems covered by\nits program? If not, did the operator provide justification in its program or procedural\nmanual? KB Pipeline stated they performed a four-year evaluation but there was no\nsupporting documentation of the results.\nAPI RP 1162, Section 2.7, Step 12 and section 8.5 also states that the operator must identify\nand document needed changes and/or modifications to its public awareness program based on\nthe results and findings of its program effectiveness evaluation. If not, the operator must\nprovide justification in its program or procedural manual. KB Pipeline Company did not have\ndocumentation that they have identified and/or implemented improvements based on the\nresults and findings of its program effectiveness evaluation.\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of\n2\n\n\n\n$1,000,000 for any related series of violations. We have reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documents involved in this case, and have decided not to conduct additional\nenforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to correct\nthe item(s) identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in Kelso-Beaver (KB) Pipeline\nbeing subject to additional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer\nto CPF 5-2012-1023W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this\nenforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any\nportion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b),\nalong with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document\nwith the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of\nwhy you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C.\n552(b).\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Ms. Kathy Davies\nPipeline Project Manager\nKB Pipeline Company\nPortland General Electric Co.\n3WTC0402\n121 SW Salmon Street\nPortland, OR 97204\nDavid Lykken, Washington UTC\nPHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 T. Finch (#135727)\n3","truncated":false,"body_characters":6092}