{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520150009M","title":"LONG BEACH GAS DEPT, CITY OF — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2015-07-01","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 192.1007(a), 192.1007(c), 192.1007(d), 192.1007(e), 192.1007(f).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520150009m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520150009m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520150009m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520150009M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving LONG BEACH GAS DEPT, CITY OF. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.1007(a),  192.1007(c),  192.1007(d),  192.1007(e),  192.1007(f). The case was opened on 2015-07-01 and is reported as closed as of 2016-02-25. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520150009M_Closure Letter_02252016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520150009M/520150009M_Closure%20Letter_02252016.pdf\n\n520150009M_Closure Letter_02252016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520150009M/520150009M_Closure%20Letter_02252016_text.pdf\n\n520150009M_notice of amendment_07012015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520150009M/520150009M_notice%20of%20amendment_07012015.pdf\n\n520150009M_notice of amendment_07012015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520150009M/520150009M_notice%20of%20amendment_07012015_text.pdf\n\n520150009M_Operator Response to Notice_07302015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520150009M/520150009M_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_07302015.pdf\n\n520150009M_notice of amendment_07012015_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJuly 1, 2015\nMr. Stephen Bateman\nDOT Compliance Primary Manager\nCity of Long Beach Gas & Oil\n2400 East Spring Street\nLong Beach, CA 90806-2285\nCPF 5-2015-0009M\nDear Mr. Bateman:\nPHMSA conducted an internal audit of its past regulatory inspections and noted that this\npreviously prepared enforcement letter from a 2012 audit of your pipeline facilities was not\nissued. While we apologize for the tardiness of this letter, PHMSA must still ensure any past\nregulatory violations have been addressed.\nFrom April 9-12 of 2012, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected your\nLong Beach Gas and Oil (LBGO) procedures and records for Distribution Integrity\nManagement Program (DIMP), as of 2012, in your Long Beach, CA offices.\nOn the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within\nLBGO’s plans or procedures, as described below:\n1. §192.1007 What are the required elements of an integrity management plan?\nA written integrity management plan must contain procedures for developing\nand implementing the following elements:\n(a) Knowledge. An operator must demonstrate an understanding of its gas\n\n\n\ndistribution system developed from reasonably available information.\n(1) Identify the characteristics of the pipeline's design and operations and the\nenvironmental factors that are necessary to assess the applicable threats and\nrisks to its gas distribution pipeline.\n(2) Consider the information gained from past design, operations, and\nmaintenance.\n(3) Identify additional information needed and provide a plan for gaining that\ninformation over time through normal activities conducted on the pipeline (for\nexample, design, construction, operations or maintenance activities).\n(4) Develop and implement a process by which the IM program will be reviewed\nperiodically and refined and improved as needed.\n(5) Provide for the capture and retention of data on any new pipeline installed.\nThe data must include, at a minimum, the location where the new pipeline is\ninstalled and the material of which it is constructed.\nLBGO’s DIMP did not provide sufficient procedural specificity to describe how the identified\ndata sources were used to develop and are to be used for implementation for the gathering of\ninformation and knowledge of its gas distribution system.\nLBGO’s DIMP did not provide sufficient procedural specificity for identifying, listing, and\ncollecting (as appropriate) additional data and information that is needed to fill gaps in\nknowledge and information due to missing, inaccurate, or incomplete records. If LBGO has\ndetermined there are no information gaps, the DIMP is required to clearly state this\ndetermination.\n2. §192.1007 What are the required elements of an integrity management plan?\nA written integrity management plan must contain procedures for developing\nand implementing the following elements:\n(c) Evaluate and rank risk. An operator must evaluate the risks associated with\nits distribution pipeline. In this evaluation, the operator must determine the\nrelative importance of each threat and estimate and rank the risks posed to its\npipeline. This evaluation must consider each applicable current and potential\nthreat, the likelihood of failure associated with each threat, and the potential\nconsequences of such a failure. An operator may subdivide its pipeline into\nregions with similar characteristics (e.g., contiguous areas within a distribution\npipeline consisting of mains, services and other appurtenances; areas with\ncommon materials or environmental factors), and for which similar actions likely\nwould be effective in reducing risk.\nLBGO’s DIMP did not adequately account for the evaluation and ranking of risks that are\ntypically associated with pipeline installations installed prior to the 1950’s. While LBGO’s\nDIMP identifies, discusses, and analyzes the threats and the higher leak rates associated with\npre-1950’s pipeline (e.g., Table 8, Section 4.2.13, Section 4.2.5.3, Section 5.2), the relative\nimportance of this combination of threats (or system vulnerability) is not determined and\nestimated, and the risks posed to the pipeline system is not ranked against other threats.\n2\n\n\n\nThe threat of “Failure to follow Procedure” discussed in LBGO’s DIMP Section 4.2.5.4 is not\nadequately accounted for in the evaluation and ranking of risks and this threat must be\nevaluated and ranked. Our inspectors believe the various threats, e.g., employee’s failure to\nfollow procedures due to any number issues, that are combined in the threat of “Failure to\nfollow Procedure” as low probability / high consequence risks that must be accounted for and\nanalyzed.\n3. §192.1007 What are the required elements of an integrity management plan?\nA written integrity management plan must contain procedures for developing\nand implementing the following elements:\n(d) Identify and implement measures to address risks. Determine and implement\nmeasures designed to reduce the risks from failure of its gas distribution pipeline.\nThese measures must include an effective leak management program (unless all\nleaks are repaired when found).\nLBGO’s DIMP did not adequately address the risk posed to the integrity of their pipelines\nsystem by the threat of the “Age of Infrastructure”. This threat is not adequately evaluated and\nranked in the LBGO DIMP (see Item 2); LBGO has failed to identify measures to address\nrisks for implementation. LBGO did not identify measures to reduce risk posed by this threat\nthat adequately account for the low probability / low consequence risks posed by existing\nthreats from pre-1950’s pipeline installations.\n4. §192.1007 What are the required elements of an integrity management plan?\nA written integrity management plan must contain procedures for developing\nand implementing the following elements:\n(e) Measure performance, monitor results, and evaluate effectiveness.\n(1) Develop and monitor performance measures from an established baseline to\nevaluate the effectiveness of its IM program. An operator must consider the\nresults of its performance monitoring in periodically re-evaluating the threats\nand risks. These performance measures must include the following:\n(i) Number of hazardous leaks either eliminated or repaired as required by\n§192.703(c) of this subchapter (or total number of leaks if all leaks are repaired\nwhen found), categorized by cause;\n(ii) Number of excavation damages;\n(iii) Number of excavation tickets (receipt of information by the underground\nfacility operator from the notification center);\n(iv) Total number of leaks either eliminated or repaired, categorized by cause;\n(v) Number of hazardous leaks either eliminated or repaired as required by\n§192.703(c) (or total number of leaks if all leaks are repaired when found),\ncategorized by material; and\n(vi) Any additional measures the operator determines are needed to evaluate the\neffectiveness of the operator's IM program in controlling each identified threat.\n3\n\n\n\n5. LBGO’s DIMP lacked procedural specificity for collecting information for performance\nmeasures for leak eliminated or repaired categorized by material (§192.1007(e)(1)(v)) as well\nas those performance measures used to track the effectiveness of measures implemented to\nreduce risk (§192.1007(e)(1)(vi)).\n§192.1007 What are the required elements of an integrity management plan?\nA written integrity management plan must contain procedures for developing\nand implementing the following elements:\n(f) Periodic Evaluation and Improvement. An operator must re-evaluate threats\nand risks on its entire pipe-line and consider the relevance of threats in one\nlocation to other areas. Each operator must determine the appropriate period for\nconducting complete program evaluations based on the complexity of its system\nand changes in factors affecting the risk of failure. An operator must conduct a\ncomplete program re-evaluation at least every five years. The operator must\nconsider the results of the performance monitoring in these evaluations.\nLBGO’s DIMP lacked procedural specificity to detail how LBGO conducts a periodic\nevaluation. The delineation between the annual review and periodic evaluation (not to exceed\n5 years) is not clear in the DIMP. These tasks appear to either need to be merged together\n(until the time a periodic evaluation is conducted on a longer interval) or the steps and actions\nto perform a periodic evaluation must be clearly described in the required procedural format.\nResponse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.237. Enclosed\nas part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nCompliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be\nadvised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being\nmade publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies\nfor confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document\nyou must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted\ninformation qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond\nwithin 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the\nallegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to\nfind facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIf, after opportunity for a hearing, your plans or procedures are found inadequate as alleged in\nthis Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans or procedures to correct the\ninadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.237). If you are not contesting this Notice, we propose that\nyou submit your amended procedures to my office within 60 days of receipt of this Notice.\nThis period may be extended by written request for good cause. Once the inadequacies\nidentified herein have been addressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement action\nwill be closed.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Long Beach Gas and Oil maintain documentation of the\n4\n\n\n\nsafety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment\n(preparation/revision of plans, procedures) and submit the total to Chris Hoidal, Director,\nWestern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In correspondence\nconcerning this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2015-0009M and, for each document you\nsubmit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nPHMSA does apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that this delayed enforcement let\nmight cause. If there are any questions concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact\nme at (720) 963-3160. 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 H. Monfared (#139063)\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n5\n\n520150009M_Closure Letter_02252016_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nFebruary 25, 2016\nMr. Stephen Bateman\nDOT Compliance Primary Manager\nCity of Long Beach Gas & Oil\n2400 East Spring Street\nLong Beach, CA 90806-2285\nCPF 5-2015-0009M\nCase Closure\nDear Mr. Bateman:\nBetween April 9-12, 2012, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected City\nof Long Beach Gas & Oil DIMP program in City of Long Beach. As a result of the\ninspection, City of Long Beach Gas & Oil was issued a Notice of Amendment on July 1,\n2015, which proposed amendment of your procedures.\nWe received your amended procedures dated July 30, 2015. My staff reviewed the amended\nprocedures, and it appears that the inadequacies outlined in the Notice of Amendment have\nbeen corrected.\nThis letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank\nyou for your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nFor Chris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 H. Monfared (#139063)","truncated":false,"body_characters":13678}