# HAWAII ELECTRIC LIGHT — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

520126011_closure letter_02262013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520126011/520126011_closure%20letter_02262013.pdf

520126011_closure letter_02262013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520126011/520126011_closure%20letter_02262013_text.pdf

520126011_Final Order_07272012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520126011/520126011_Final%20Order_07272012.pdf

520126011_Final Order_07272012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520126011/520126011_Final%20Order_07272012_text.pdf

520126011_NOPV PCO_04172012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520126011/520126011_NOPV%20PCO_04172012.pdf

520126011_NOPV PCO_04172012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520126011/520126011_NOPV%20PCO_04172012_text.pdf

520126011_operator response_05182012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520126011/520126011_operator%20response_05182012.pdf

520126011_closure letter_02262013_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
February 26, 2013
Mr. Jay Ignacio
President
Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc.
1200 Kilauea Avenue
Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4295
CPF 5-2012-6011
Dear Mr. Ignacio:
On July 27, 2012, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued
to Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc. a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order
included a Compliance Order. Based on our review of the documentation you provided and an
on-site pipeline safety inspection on December 5, 2012, it has been determined that you have
complied with the terms of this Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Chris Hoidal
Director, Western Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry
PHP-500 Mulligan/Nguyen

520126011_Final Order_07272012_text.pdf

JULY 27, 2012
Mr. Jay Ignacio
President
Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc.
1200 Kilauea Avenue
Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4295
Re: CPF No. 5-2012-6011
Dear Mr. Ignacio:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc., 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. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing,
or as otherwise provided 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
Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc., ) CPF No. 5-2012-6011
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On March 28 and 29, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the No. 6 Fuel Oil pipeline facilities and
records of Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc. (HELCO or Respondent), in Hilo, Hawaii.
HELCO operates a 13,995 foot long hazardous liquid pipeline that transports No. 6 fuel oil from
the Chevron Hilo terminal to both the Hill and Shipman power plants that provide electricity
throughout the island of Hawaii.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated April 17, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed
Compliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In
accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that HELCO had committed
various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain
measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning items required no further action, but
warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face possible enforcement action.
HELCO responded to the Notice by letter dated May 18, 2012 (Response). The company did not
contest the allegations of violation but provided information concerning the corrective actions it
intended to take. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, HELCO did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated
49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(2), which states:



2
§ 195.404 Maps and records.
(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its
pipeline systems that include at least the following information:
(1) …
(2) All crossings of public roads, railroads, rivers, buried utilities, and
foreign pipelines.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(2) by failing to maintain
current maps of its Hilo pipeline system. Specifically, the Notice alleged that HELCO failed to
maintain maps that included crossings of buried utilities and foreign pipelines that had been in
existence for years. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based
upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(2)
by failing to maintain current maps of its Hilo pipeline system that included crossings of buried
utilities and foreign pipelines.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b), which states:
§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.
(a) …
(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at
least twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine
that it is functioning properly.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420 by failing to inspect the
mainline block valves on its Hilo pipeline system at least twice each calendar year not to exceed
every 7½ months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that HELCO failed to perform documented
inspections of these valves beginning in 2003. Respondent did not contest this allegation of
violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent
violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) by failing to perform documented inspections of the mainline
block valves on its Hilo pipeline system twice each calendar year not to exceed 7½ months.
Item 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(c), which states:
§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(a) …
(c) Rectifiers and other devices. You must electrically check for proper
performance each device in the first column at the frequency stated in the
second column.



3
Device Check frequency
Rectifier ………………………..
Reverse current switch.
Diode.
Interference bond whose failure
would jeopardize structural
protection.
At least six times each calendar year,
but with intervals not exceeding 2½
months.
Other interference bond ……….. At least once each calendar year, but
with intervals not exceeding 15 months.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(c) by failing to electrically
check for proper performance two interference bonds whose failure would jeopardize the Hilo
pipeline’s structural protection at least six times each calendar year at intervals not to exceed 2½
months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that HELCO failed to check and address foreign current
drains at the Hill Plant and the Shipman Plant. Respondent did not contest this allegation of
violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent
violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(c) by failing to electrically check for proper performance two
interference bonds whose failure would jeopardize structural protection at the Hill Plant and the
Shipman Plant.
Item 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.577(a), which states:
§ 195.577 What must I do to alleviate interference currents?
(a) For pipelines exposed to stray currents, you must have a program
to identify, test for, and minimize the detrimental effects of such currents.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.577(a) by failing to have a program
to identify, test for, and minimize the detrimental effects of stray currents on its Hilo pipeline.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that HELCO failed to analyze whether stray currents were
causing corrosion that had occurred where two foreign pipelines crossed over the Hilo pipeline,
and if so to take action to minimize the detrimental effects of these currents. Respondent did not
contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I
find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.577(a) by failing to have a program to identify,
test for, and minimize the detrimental effects of stray currents on its Hilo pipeline.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.



4
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 3, 5, 8, and 9 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.404(a)(2), 195.420(b), 195.573(c), and 195.577(a), respectively.
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids
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:
1. With respect to the violation of § 195.404(a)(2) (Item 3), Respondent must update
its system maps to include crossings of not only all public roads, railways, and rivers,
but also all crossings of buried utilities and foreign pipelines.
2. With respect to the violation of § 195.420(b) (Item 5), Respondent must develop
and implement a program to ensure that its mainline valves are inspected and
maintained per valve manufacturer guidance at the required interval and to ensure that
the results and recommendations of those inspections are documented.
3. With respect to the violation of § 195.573(c) (Item 8), Respondent must develop
and implement a program to ensure that all of its Hilo pipeline current drains are
electrically checked at least six times per calendar year not to exceed every 2½
months and to ensure that the results and recommendations of those electrical checks
are documented.
4. With respect to the violation of § 195.577(a) (Item 9), Respondent must develop
and implement a program to identify potential areas of stray currents and must test
these areas for stray current interference with the Hilo pipeline’s cathodic protection
system and take action to minimize the detrimental effects of any such currents.
5. Complete Compliance Order Items 1-4 above within 60 days of receipt of this
Order. Submit documentation demonstrating completion of these items to the
Director, Western Region, OPS, 12300 W. Dakota Avenue, Suite 110, Lakewood, CO
80228.
6. It is requested, but not required, that Respondent maintain documentation of the
safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit
the total costs to the Director. It is requested that these costs be reported in two
categories: (1) the total costs associated with the preparation/revision of plans,
procedures, studies, and analyses; and (2) the total costs associated with
replacements, additions, and other changes to physical pipeline facilities.
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 and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.



5
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the 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.
WARNING ITEMS
With respect to Items 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did
not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered
to be warning items. The warnings were for:
49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to review all of
its procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and
handling abnormal operations and emergencies once each calendar year not to
exceed 15 months during the 2009-2010 period;
49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(13) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to
periodically review the work done by its employees and contractors to determine
the effectiveness of procedures used in normal operation and maintenance;
49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect the
surface conditions on or adjacent to that portion of the Hilo pipeline right-of-way
that crosses the golf course along Banyan Way;
49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to internally
inspect the physical integrity of its Tank 5A breakout tank in accordance with API
Standard 653 using a certified API inspector; and
49 C.F.R. § 195.555 (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to require and verify
that supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of that portion of the corrosion
control procedures established under § 195.402(c)(3) for which they are
responsible for ensuring compliance.
HELCO presented information in its Response showing that it was taking certain actions to
address the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items, Respondent may be
subject to future enforcement action.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
___________________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 14951