{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520150010W","title":"CITY OF SUSANVILLE — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2015-07-06","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.616(a), 192.616(b), 192.616(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520150010w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520150010w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520150010w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520150010W","body":"Warning Letter involving CITY OF SUSANVILLE. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.616(a),  192.616(b),  192.616(c). The case was opened on 2015-07-06 and is reported as closed as of 2015-07-06. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520150010W_warning letter_07062015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520150010W/520150010W_warning%20letter_07062015.pdf\n\n520150010W_warning letter_07062015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520150010W/520150010W_warning%20letter_07062015_text.pdf\n\n520150010W_warning letter_07062015_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJuly 6, 2015\nMr. Craig C. Platt\nPublic Works Director\nCity of Susanville\n720 South Street\nSusanville, CA 96130-3904\nCPF 5-2015-0010W\nDear Mr. Platt:\nPHMSA conducted an internal audit of its past regulatory inspection and discovered that this\nenforcement letter was not issued. PHMSA must ensure that all violations revealed during\npast inspection are provided to pipeline operators so they can remedy them. We apologize for\nthe tardiness of this letter but we need to ensure you address the regulatory deficiencies to\nprovide for public safety.\nOn June 28, 2012 a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected your\nPublic Awareness Program (PAP) in Susanville, California.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and\nthe probable violations are:\n\n\n\n1. §192.616 Public Awareness\n(a) Except for an operator of a master meter or petroleum gas system covered\nunder paragraph (j) of this section, each pipeline operator must develop and\nimplement a written continuing public education program that follows the\nguidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended\nPractice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7).\nCity of Susanville’s PAP did not include a written statement of management support, did not\nname a program administrator, did not identify key personnel and their title, and did not\nspecified resources or founding allocations.\nEach operator of hazardous liquid pipeline system, natural gas transmission pipeline system,\ngathering pipeline system, or natural gas distribution pipeline system must establish (and\nperiodically update) a written PAP designed to cover all required components of the program\ndescribed in API RP 1162 Section 7.1. The written program must include:\na. A statement of management commitment to achieving effective public awareness.\nb. A description of the roles and responsibilities of personnel administering the\nprogram.\nc. Identification of key personnel and their title (including senior management\nresponsible for the implementation, delivery, and ongoing development of the\nprogram).\n2. §192.616 Public Awareness\n(b) The operator's program must follow the general program recommendations\nof API RP 1162 and assess the unique attributes and characteristics of the\noperator's pipeline and facilities.\nThe City of Susanville operates a natural gas distribution system consisting of 60 miles of\nmain distribution pipeline, 2942 service lines, and 10 regulator stations, but failed to include\nthese facilities as unique attributes to its system. Where appropriate, communications with\naffected public and emergency and public officials in proximity of major facilities must\ninclude information to promote understanding of the nature of the facility.\nEach operator should communicate general information regarding the facility and products\nstored or transported through the facility, as described in API RP 1162 Section 4.12.\nAttributes and characteristics include items such as transmission, distribution, gathering, the\npipe’s physical properties (diameter, wall thickness, etc.), the number of pipelines in the right-\nof-way (ROW), the location of the above ground facilities along the ROW, and the chemical\nand physical properties of the products transported.\n2\n\n\n\n3. §192.616 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.\nCity of Susanville failed to identify the baseline and supplemental message delivery\nfrequency and message delivery methods for all stakeholder audience groups as required by\nAPI RP 1162, table 2-2. PAP communications frequencies, as required by API RP 1162, for\nlocal natural gas distribution (LDC) companies are:\na. b. c. d. e. f. Once a year for Affected Public\nTwice a year for LDC customers\nOnce a year for Emergency Officials\nOnce every 3 years for Public Officials\nOnce a years for Excavator Contractors\nAs applicable for One-Call Centers\nEach of the primary stakeholder audiences must be considered independently by the operator\nwhen determining the delivery method. Operators may use one or more delivery methods for\neach of the primary stakeholder audiences and that selection of delivery method is designed to\nassure all the intended stakeholders receive at least one PAP message during each delivery\nperiod.\n4. §192.616 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.\nCity of Susanville did not consider and/or implemente supplemental program enhancements\nas required by API RP 1162 Section 6.2. When the operator develops its PAP and performs\nsubsequent periodic program evaluations, it is recommended that a step for assessing relevant\nfactors along the pipeline route be included to consider what components of the PAP should\nbe enhanced. Each operator must consider each of the factors, specified in API RP 1162, and\napply them along the entire route of the pipeline system.\n3\n\n\n\n5. §192.616 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.\nThe City of Susanville failed to establish an annual evaluation process to review its PAP\naccording to the guidelines in API RP 1162. The City did not perform an annual audit each\nyear after initial program implementation in July 31, 2006. The operator should complete an\nannual audit or review of whether the program has been developed and implemented. The\npurpose of the audit is to make sure:\na. The PAP been developed and written to address the objectives, elements and\nbaseline schedule as described in API RP 1162 Section 2.\nb. The PAP been implemented and documented to the written program.\nEach operator must use self-assessment, third-party, or regulatory inspections as an alternative\nmethodology when completing an annual audit or program implementation.\n6. §192.616 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.\nThe City of Susanville did not have a process determining program changes or modifications\nbased on results of the evaluation to improve PAP effectiveness according to the guidelines in\nAPI RP 1162. The City did not perform an effectiveness evaluation of its PAP since the\ninitial program implementation in July 31, 2006. An effective evaluation was due by July 30,\n2010. Each operator should assess progress on the following measures to assess whether the\nactions undertaken in implementation of API RP 1162 are achieving the intended goals and\nobjectives:\na. b. c. d. Whether the information is reaching the intended stakeholder audiences.\nIf the recipient audiences are understanding the message delivered\nWhether the recipients are motivated to respond appropriately in alignment with\nthe information provided\nIf the implementation of the PAP is impacting the bottom-line results.\n4\n\n\n\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a\nrelated series of violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum\npenalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to\nexceed $1,000,000 for a 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.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer\nto CPF 5-2015-0010W. 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).\nPHMSA does apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that this delayed enforcement\nletter might cause. If there are any questions concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to\ncontact me 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 (#139070)\n5","truncated":false,"body_characters":10512}