{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520126011","title":"HAWAII ELECTRIC LIGHT — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-04-17","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.402(c)(13), 195.404(a)(2), 195.412(a), 195.420(b), 195.432(b), 195.555, 195.573(c), 195.577(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520126011.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520126011.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520126011","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520126011","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving HAWAII ELECTRIC LIGHT. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.402(c)(13),  195.404(a)(2),  195.412(a),  195.420(b),  195.432(b),  195.555,  195.573(c),  195.577(a). The case was opened on 2012-04-17 and is reported as closed as of 2013-02-26. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520126011_closure letter_02262013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520126011/520126011_closure%20letter_02262013.pdf\n\n520126011_closure letter_02262013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520126011/520126011_closure%20letter_02262013_text.pdf\n\n520126011_Final Order_07272012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520126011/520126011_Final%20Order_07272012.pdf\n\n520126011_Final Order_07272012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520126011/520126011_Final%20Order_07272012_text.pdf\n\n520126011_NOPV PCO_04172012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520126011/520126011_NOPV%20PCO_04172012.pdf\n\n520126011_NOPV PCO_04172012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520126011/520126011_NOPV%20PCO_04172012_text.pdf\n\n520126011_operator response_05182012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520126011/520126011_operator%20response_05182012.pdf\n\n520126011_closure letter_02262013_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nFebruary 26, 2013\nMr. Jay Ignacio\nPresident\nHawaii Electric Light Company, Inc.\n1200 Kilauea Avenue\nHilo, Hawaii 96720-4295\nCPF 5-2012-6011\nDear Mr. Ignacio:\nOn July 27, 2012, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued\nto Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc. a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order\nincluded a Compliance Order. Based on our review of the documentation you provided and an\non-site pipeline safety inspection on December 5, 2012, it has been determined that you have\ncomplied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 Mulligan/Nguyen\n\n520126011_Final Order_07272012_text.pdf\n\nJULY 27, 2012\nMr. Jay Ignacio\nPresident\nHawaii Electric Light Company, Inc.\n1200 Kilauea Avenue\nHilo, Hawaii 96720-4295\nRe: CPF No. 5-2012-6011\nDear Mr. Ignacio:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc., to\ncomply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been\ncompleted, as determined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be\nclosed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing,\nor as otherwise provided 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\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nHawaii Electric Light Company, Inc., ) CPF No. 5-2012-6011\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn March 28 and 29, 2011, 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 No. 6 Fuel Oil pipeline facilities and\nrecords of Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc. (HELCO or Respondent), in Hilo, Hawaii.\nHELCO operates a 13,995 foot long hazardous liquid pipeline that transports No. 6 fuel oil from\nthe Chevron Hilo terminal to both the Hill and Shipman power plants that provide electricity\nthroughout the island of Hawaii.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated April 17, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that HELCO had committed\nvarious violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain\nmeasures to correct the alleged violations. The warning items required no further action, but\nwarned the operator to correct the probable violation or face possible enforcement action.\nHELCO responded to the Notice by letter dated May 18, 2012 (Response). The company did not\ncontest the allegations of violation but provided information concerning the corrective actions it\nintended to take. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, HELCO did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated\n49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(2), which states:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 195.404 Maps and records.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its\npipeline systems that include at least the following information:\n(1) …\n(2) All crossings of public roads, railroads, rivers, buried utilities, and\nforeign pipelines.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(2) by failing to maintain\ncurrent maps of its Hilo pipeline system. Specifically, the Notice alleged that HELCO failed to\nmaintain maps that included crossings of buried utilities and foreign pipelines that had been in\nexistence for years. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based\nupon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(2)\nby failing to maintain current maps of its Hilo pipeline system that included crossings of buried\nutilities and foreign pipelines.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b), which states:\n§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(a) …\n(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at\nleast twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine\nthat it is functioning properly.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420 by failing to inspect the\nmainline block valves on its Hilo pipeline system at least twice each calendar year not to exceed\nevery 7½ months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that HELCO failed to perform documented\ninspections of these valves beginning in 2003. Respondent did not contest this allegation of\nviolation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) by failing to perform documented inspections of the mainline\nblock valves on its Hilo pipeline system twice each calendar year not to exceed 7½ months.\nItem 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(c), which states:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) …\n(c) Rectifiers and other devices. You must electrically check for proper\nperformance each device in the first column at the frequency stated in the\nsecond column.\n\n\n\n3\nDevice Check frequency\nRectifier ………………………..\nReverse current switch.\nDiode.\nInterference bond whose failure\nwould jeopardize structural\nprotection.\nAt least six times each calendar year,\nbut with intervals not exceeding 2½\nmonths.\nOther interference bond ……….. At least once each calendar year, but\nwith intervals not exceeding 15 months.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(c) by failing to electrically\ncheck for proper performance two interference bonds whose failure would jeopardize the Hilo\npipeline’s structural protection at least six times each calendar year at intervals not to exceed 2½\nmonths. Specifically, the Notice alleged that HELCO failed to check and address foreign current\ndrains at the Hill Plant and the Shipman Plant. Respondent did not contest this allegation of\nviolation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(c) by failing to electrically check for proper performance two\ninterference bonds whose failure would jeopardize structural protection at the Hill Plant and the\nShipman Plant.\nItem 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.577(a), which states:\n§ 195.577 What must I do to alleviate interference currents?\n(a) For pipelines exposed to stray currents, you must have a program\nto identify, test for, and minimize the detrimental effects of such currents.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.577(a) by failing to have a program\nto identify, test for, and minimize the detrimental effects of stray currents on its Hilo pipeline.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that HELCO failed to analyze whether stray currents were\ncausing corrosion that had occurred where two foreign pipelines crossed over the Hilo pipeline,\nand if so to take action to minimize the detrimental effects of these currents. Respondent did not\ncontest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I\nfind that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.577(a) by failing to have a program to identify,\ntest for, and minimize the detrimental effects of stray currents on its Hilo pipeline.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\n\n\n\n4\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 3, 5, 8, and 9 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.404(a)(2), 195.420(b), 195.573(c), and 195.577(a), respectively.\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids\nor who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\nstandards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and\n49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance\nwith the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.404(a)(2) (Item 3), Respondent must update\nits system maps to include crossings of not only all public roads, railways, and rivers,\nbut also all crossings of buried utilities and foreign pipelines.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.420(b) (Item 5), Respondent must develop\nand implement a program to ensure that its mainline valves are inspected and\nmaintained per valve manufacturer guidance at the required interval and to ensure that\nthe results and recommendations of those inspections are documented.\n3. With respect to the violation of § 195.573(c) (Item 8), Respondent must develop\nand implement a program to ensure that all of its Hilo pipeline current drains are\nelectrically checked at least six times per calendar year not to exceed every 2½\nmonths and to ensure that the results and recommendations of those electrical checks\nare documented.\n4. With respect to the violation of § 195.577(a) (Item 9), Respondent must develop\nand implement a program to identify potential areas of stray currents and must test\nthese areas for stray current interference with the Hilo pipeline’s cathodic protection\nsystem and take action to minimize the detrimental effects of any such currents.\n5. Complete Compliance Order Items 1-4 above within 60 days of receipt of this\nOrder. Submit documentation demonstrating completion of these items to the\nDirector, Western Region, OPS, 12300 W. Dakota Avenue, Suite 110, Lakewood, CO\n80228.\n6. It is requested, but not required, that Respondent maintain documentation of the\nsafety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit\nthe total costs to the Director. It is requested that these costs be reported in two\ncategories: (1) the total costs associated with the preparation/revision of plans,\nprocedures, studies, and analyses; and (2) the total costs associated with\nreplacements, additions, and other changes to physical pipeline facilities.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\n\n\n\n5\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did\nnot propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered\nto be warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to review all of\nits procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and\nhandling abnormal operations and emergencies once each calendar year not to\nexceed 15 months during the 2009-2010 period;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(13) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to\nperiodically review the work done by its employees and contractors to determine\nthe effectiveness of procedures used in normal operation and maintenance;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect the\nsurface conditions on or adjacent to that portion of the Hilo pipeline right-of-way\nthat crosses the golf course along Banyan Way;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to internally\ninspect the physical integrity of its Tank 5A breakout tank in accordance with API\nStandard 653 using a certified API inspector; and\n49 C.F.R. § 195.555 (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to require and verify\nthat supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of that portion of the corrosion\ncontrol procedures established under § 195.402(c)(3) for which they are\nresponsible for ensuring compliance.\nHELCO presented information in its Response showing that it was taking certain actions to\naddress the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items, Respondent may be\nsubject to future enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":14951}