{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520160005M","title":"CITY OF SUSANVILLE — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2016-06-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 192.233, 192.459.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520160005m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520160005m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520160005m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520160005M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving CITY OF SUSANVILLE. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.233,  192.459. The case was opened on 2016-06-07 and is reported as closed as of 2020-01-13. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520160005M_Closure Letter_01132020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160005M/520160005M_Closure%20Letter_01132020.pdf\n\n520160005M_Closure Letter_01132020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160005M/520160005M_Closure%20Letter_01132020_text.pdf\n\n520160005M_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_06192019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160005M/520160005M_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_06192019.pdf\n\n520160005M_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_06192019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160005M/520160005M_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_06192019_text.pdf\n\n520160005M_Notice of Amendment_06072016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160005M/520160005M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_06072016.pdf\n\n520160005M_Notice of Amendment_06072016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160005M/520160005M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_06072016_text.pdf\n\n520160005M_Operator Petition For Reconsideration_06192018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160005M/520160005M_Operator%20Petition%20For%20Reconsideration_06192018.pdf\n\n520160005M_Order Directing Amendment_06012018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160005M/520160005M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_06012018.pdf\n\n520160005M_Order Directing Amendment_06012018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160005M/520160005M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_06012018_text.pdf\n\n520160005M_Closure Letter_01132020_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJanuary 13, 2020\nMr. Dan Newton\nPublic Works Director\nCity of Susanville\n720 South Street\nSusanville, CA 96130\nCPF 5-2016-0005M\nClosure Letter\nDear Mr. Newton:\nOn December 15 through 17, 2015, representatives from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), pursuant to chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, conducted an on-site\npipeline safety inspection of The City of Susanville Gas Transmission System (Susanville) procedures\nfor Operations and Maintenance in Susanville, California. As a result of the inspection, Susanville was\nissued a Notice of Amendment, and after a hearing, was issued an Order Directing Amendment on June\n1, 2018, which directed amendment of your procedures.1\nSusanville submitted its amended procedures on June 28, 2019. My staff reviewed the amended\nprocedures, and it appears that the inadequacies outlined in the Order Directing Amendment have been\ncorrected.\nThis letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank you for\nyour cooperation.\nSincerely,\nDustin Hubbard\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 J. Dunphy (#148382)\n1 Susanville filed a Petition for Reconsideration on the Order Directing Amendment, which was denied in the Decision on\nPetition for Reconsideration, issued by PHMSA on June 19, 2019.\n\n520160005M_Order Directing Amendment_06012018_text.pdf\n\nJune 1, 2018\nMr. Dan Newton\nPublic Works Director\nCity of Susanville\n720 South Street\nSusanville, CA 96130\nRe: CPF No. 5-2016-0005M\nDear Mr. Newton:\nEnclosed please find the Order Directing Amendment issued in the above-referenced case. It\nmakes findings of inadequate procedures and requires that the City of Susanville amend certain\nof its operating and maintenance procedures. When the amendment of procedures is completed,\nas determined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service\nof the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing as provided under\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\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____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nCity of Susanville, ) CPF No. 5-2016-0005M\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT\nOn December 15-17, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\ninspected the procedures for operations and maintenance for the City of Susanville’s (Susanville\nor Respondent) gas system in Susanville, California. Susanville operates a 6-inch diameter\npipeline approximately 10 miles in length along with the city’s gas distribution system.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated June 7, 2016, a Notice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.206, the Notice alleged certain inadequacies in Respondent’s Operating and\nMaintenance Manual and proposed requiring Susanville to amend its procedures to comply with\nthe provisions of 49 C.F.R. Part 192.\nSusanville responded to both this Notice and a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order issued in companion case CPF 5-2016-0004 by letter dated July 12, 2016, as\nsupplemented by letter dated December 29, 2016 (Response). Susanville contested the\nallegations on legal grounds and requested a hearing. A hearing was subsequently held on\nJanuary 11, 2017 in Lakewood, Colorado, with an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel,\nPHMSA, presiding. After the hearing, Respondent provided a post-hearing submission for the\nrecord, by letter dated February 21, 2017 (Closing).\nFINDINGS OF INADEQUACY\nIn its Response and at the hearing, Susanville contested the Notice, contending that the pipeline\nis not a transmission line, but rather is a distribution main line. The terms Distribution line and\nTransmission line are defined in 49 C.F.R. § 192.3 as follows:\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (May 15, 2015) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-0005M\nPage 2\nDistribution line means a pipeline other than a gathering or\ntransmission line.\nTransmission line means a pipeline, other than a gathering line, that:\n(1) Transports gas from a gathering line or storage facility to a\ndistribution center, storage facility, or large volume customer that is\nnot down-stream from a distribution center; (2) operates at a hoop\nstress of 20 percent or more of SMYS; or (3) transports gas within\na storage field.\nNote: A large volume customer may receive similar volumes of gas\nas a distribution center, and includes factories, power plants, and\ninstitutional users of gas.\nA pipeline meets the regulatory definition of a transmission line if it meets any one of the three\nprongs set forth in the definition. OPS contended that the pipeline was a transmission line\nbecause it met two of the three prongs. OPS stated that the pipeline met the first prong in that it\ntransported gas to a large volume customer that is not down-stream from a distribution center\nand met the second prong in that it operates at a hoop stress of 20 percent or more of specified\nminimum yield strength (SMYS). Susanville disagreed with OPS and argued that neither of the\ntwo prongs OPS pointed to were met.\nIn the companion case, I found that Susanville committed four violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192.\nFor reasons more fully discussed in that order, I found that Respondent’s pipeline is a\ntransmission line because it serves two large volume customers that are not downstream from a\ndistribution center and operates at a hoop stress above 20 percent SMYS for purposes of\nclassification. In its Response and at the hearing, Susanville acknowledged that if the pipeline is\ndetermined to be a transmission line, the facts as alleged establish the inadequacy of its\noperations and maintenance procedures as alleged in this proceeding.\nAMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES\nAccordingly, I find that Susanville’s procedures are inadequate to ensure safe operation of its\npipeline system. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, Susanville is\nordered to make the following revisions to its procedures. Respondent must:\n1. Amend its procedures to explicitly require exposed pipe to be examined for\nevidence of corrosion or coating deterioration including documenting any\nfindings and required remedial action in accordance with § 192.459.\n2. Amend its procedures for the allowance and dimensions of miter joints to\nconform with the requirements of § 192.233.\n3. Submit the amended procedures to the Director within 180 days following receipt\nof this Order.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-0005M\nPage 3\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.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not\nto exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for each\nday the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Order\nto the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,\nSE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief\nCounsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of this Order by\nRespondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The terms of the order remain in effect unless the\nAssociate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Order are\neffective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nJune 1, 2018\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n520160005M_Notice of Amendment_06072016_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJune 7, 2016\nMr. Dan Newton\nPublic Works Director\nCity of Susanville\n720 South Street\nSusanville, CA 96130\nCPF 5-2016-0005M\nDear Mr. Newton:\nOn December 15-17, 2015, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected The\nCity of Susanville’s Gas System (Susanville) procedures for Operations and Maintenance in\nSusanville, CA. Both the Susanville Transmission and Distribution pipelines were inspected.\nOn the basis of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within\nSusanville’s plans or procedures for maintaining your Transmission systems, as described\nbelow:\n\n\n\n1. §192.459 External corrosion control: Examination of buried pipeline when\nexposed.\nWhenever an operator has knowledge that any portion of a buried pipeline is\nexposed, the exposed portion must be examined for evidence of external\ncorrosion if the pipe is bare, or if the coating is deteriorated. If external\ncorrosion requiring remedial action under Secs. 192.483 through 192.489 is\nfound, the operator shall investigate circumferentially and longitudinally beyond\nthe exposed portion (by visual examination, indirect method, or both) to\ndetermine whether additional corrosion requiring remedial action exists in the\nvicinity of the exposed portion.\nThe Susanville Operations and Maintenance Plan does not contain procedures explicitly\nrequiring exposed pipe be examined for evidence of corrosion or coating deterioration,\ncompleting and documenting any findings or required remedial action in accordance with\n§192.459.\n2. §192.233 Miter joints.\n(a) A miter joint on steel pipe to be operated at a pressure that produces a hoop\nstress of 30 percent or more of SMYS may not deflect the pipe more than 3°.\n(b) A miter joint on steel pipe to be operated at a pressure that produces a hoop\nstress of less than 30 percent, but more than 10 percent of SMYS may not deflect\nthe pipe more than 12 1/2° and must be a distance equal to one pipe diameter or\nmore away from any other miter joint, as measured from the crotch of each joint.\n(c) A miter joint on steel pipe to be operated at a pressure that produces a hoop\nstress of 10 percent or less of SMYS may not deflect the pipe more than 90°.\nThe City of Susanville O&M Manual allows installation of miter joints on transmission lines\nand mains with the permission the engineer. This procedure language is vague as to which\nengineer will approve, how much miter is allowed per joint and under what circumstances\nmiters joints will be allowed. §192.233 is prescriptive and must be followed if miter joints are\nallowed to be installed in a gas pipeline. Susanville must incorporate the requirements of\n§192.233 if they intend to allow miter joints.\nDistribution System\nPlease note that Items 1 and 2 also apply to your Distribution system pipelines. PHMSA will\naddress these same items in a similar but separate letter.\n2\n\n\n\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 sixty (60) days of receipt of this\nNotice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause. Once the\ninadequacies identified herein have been addressed in your amended procedures, this\nenforcement action will be closed.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that The City of Susanville Gas System maintain\ndocumentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of\nAmendment (preparation/revision of plans, procedures) and submit the total to Chris Hoidal,\nDirector, Western Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In\ncorrespondence concerning this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2016-0005M and, for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 Jason Dunphy (#148382)\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n3\n\n520160005M_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_06192019_text.pdf\n\nJune 19, 2019\nMr. Dan Newton\nPublic Works Director\nCity of Susanville\n720 South Street\nSusanville, California 96130\nRe: CPF No. 5-2016-0005M\nDear Mr. Newton:\nEnclosed please find the Decision on Reconsideration issued in the above-referenced case. It\ndenies your Petition for Reconsideration. Service of the Decision by certified mail is deemed\neffective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\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____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nCity of Susanville, California, ) CPF No. 5-2016-0005M\na municipal corporation, )\n)\n)\n)\nPetitioner. )\n____________________________________)\nDECISION ON RECONSIDERATION\nIn a June 1, 2018 Order Directing Amendment (Order), I found that the City of Susanville’s\n(Susanville) written procedures were inadequate to ensure safe operation of its pipeline system\nfollowing an inspection by the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) of a 6-inch diameter, 10-mile\nlong gas pipeline operated by Susanville.1 I ordered Susanville to make certain revisions to its\nprocedures to correct these inadequacies.\nOn June 19, 2018, Susanville submitted a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Order.2\nThe Petition questioned two aspects of the Order and requested that PHMSA reconsider its\nfindings.3\nBecause the evidence of record supports the findings in question, I am denying the Petition and\naffirming the Order without modification.\nBackground\nFollowing a December 2015 onsite pipeline safety inspection of Respondent’s facilities and\nrecords in Susanville, California by OPS, on June 7, 2016, the Director, Western Region, OPS\n(Director) issued a Notice of Amendment (Notice) to Susanville.4 In accordance with 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.206, the Notice alleged certain inadequacies in Respondent’s Operating and Maintenance\n1 City of Susanville, Order Directing Amendment, CPF No. 5-2016-0005M (June 1, 2018).\n2 One-page letter from Mr. Daniel Gibbs, PE, Acting Public Works Director, City of Susanville to Mr. Alan K.\nMayberry, Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, dated June 19, 2018 (Petition).\n3 Id.\n4 Notice of Amendment, CPF No. 5-2016-0005M (June 7, 2016).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-0005M\nPage 2\nManual and proposed requiring Susanville to amend its procedures to comply with the provisions\nof 49 C.F.R. Part 192.5\nSusanville responded to both this Notice and a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order issued in companion case CPF 5-2016-0004 by letter dated July 12, 2016, as\nsupplemented by letter dated December 29, 2016 (Response). Susanville contested the\nallegations on legal grounds and requested a hearing. A hearing was subsequently held on\nJanuary 11, 2017 in Lakewood, Colorado before a PHMSA Presiding Official.\nOn June 1, 2018, I simultaneously issued a Final Order in a companion case and an Order\nDirecting Amendment (Order) in this case incorporating the finding from the companion case\nthat the pipeline was a transmission line. The Order incorporated the finding in the companion\nFinal Order that the 6-inch diameter pipeline operated by Susanville was properly classified as a\ntransmission line under two different prongs of the regulatory definition of a transmission line,\neither of which renders it a transmission line, and that Susanville had an obligation to comply\nwith the regulatory requirements for transmission lines.6 Susanville acknowledged that if the\npipeline were determined to be a transmission line, the facts as alleged in the Notice established\nthe cited inadequacies. Accordingly, I found that Susanville’s procedures were inadequate as\nproposed in the Notice and ordered Susanville to amend its procedures for implementing 49\nC.F.R. §§ 192.459 and 192.233.\nOn June 19, 2018, Susanville submitted this Petition requesting reconsideration of the\ndetermination that the pipeline was a transmission line.\nStandard of Review\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, a respondent is afforded the right to petition the Associate\nAdministrator for reconsideration of an order directing amendment. However, that right is not an\nappeal or an opportunity to seek a de novo review of the record.\n7 It is a venue for presenting the\nAssociate Administrator with information that was not previously available or requesting that\nany errors in the order be corrected. Requests for consideration of additional facts or arguments\nmust be supported by a statement of reasons as to why those facts or arguments were not\npresented prior to the issuance of the order. Repetitious information or arguments will not be\nconsidered.\n5 OPS simultaneously issued a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order proposing to find that\nSusanville committed several violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192. Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order, CPF No. 5-2016-0004 (June 7, 2016). A Final Order for that proceeding was issued\nsimultaneously with the Order Directing Amendment for which Susanville also filed a Petition for Reconsideration.\nA Decision on Reconsideration for that Petition is being issued simultaneously with this decision.\n6 City of Susanville, Final Order, CPF No. 5-2016-0004 (June 1, 2018) at 2-5 (Final Order).\n7 49 C.F.R. § 190.243(a)-(d).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-0005M\nPage 3\nAnalysis\nIn its Petition, Susanville raised two issues for reconsideration relating to the determination\n(more fully explained in the companion case Final Order) that the 6-inch diameter, 10-mile\npipeline it operates is properly classified as a transmission line. First, Susanville expressed the\nconcern that a 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) raised by Susanville in its\nResponse and during the hearing was not sufficiently considered in support of its arguments.\nSecond, Susanville questioned whether the location where its large volume customers were\nconnected to the pipeline may constitute a connection or branch that would warrant changing the\ntransmission line classification to distribution line for the portion of the pipeline extending\nbetween that location and the Susanville City Gate station. I will discuss each in turn.\nWith respect to the first issue, Susanville expressed the concern that the 2016 NPRM raised by\nSusanville in its Response and during the hearing was not sufficiently considered in support of\nits arguments. Susanville raised this NPRM in connection with the applicability of the term\n“distribution center” which is not defined in the regulations (notably, the NPRM has not become\na Final Rule). The companion Final Order discussed this portion of the NPRM in the following\nmanner:\nSusanville also argued that the power plant and the correctional facility were\ndownstream of a “distribution center” which, if correct, would negate a\ntransmission line designation under this prong of the definition. Section\n192.3 does not contain a definition of a distribution center, but the term is\ngenerally understood to mean the point where an incoming gas pipeline\nbranches into a lower pressure network of distribution lines that provide gas\nservice to customers.8 Respondent further argued that it believed its\nposition was supported by a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)\nissued by PHMSA in 2016 that proposed adding a definition of distribution\ncenter to § 192.3.9 This NPRM proposed defining a distribution center as a\nlocation where “gas volumes are either metered or have pressure or volume\nreductions prior to delivery to customers.” However, this proposed\ndefinition appears to refer to typical gas utility customers such as homes\nand businesses because it did not use the term large volume customers. The\nproposition that the word “customers” in this proposed definition of\n“distribution center” should include large volume customers would be\ninconsistent with the longstanding regulatory definition of “transmission\nline” which expressly includes lines serving large volume customers. In\nany event this NPRM has not become a final rule. In this instance, the\nlocation where a network of distribution lines that serves as the distribution\ncenter delivering gas service to customers is the Susanville City Gate station\n8 Letter from Edward J. Ondak, Director, Office of Pipeline Safety, to David Sinclair, Vice President of Operations,\nEnstar Natural Gas Company, CPF No. 58014W, 1998 WL 35166442 (Aug. 21, 1998).\n9 Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission and Gathering Lines, (81 Fed. Reg. 20807). This NPRM has not\nbecome a final rule.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-0005M\nPage 4\nat the downstream end of the 10-mile segment. Therefore, Respondent’s\npipeline serves two large volume customers that are not downstream from\na distribution center and the first prong is met.\nSusanville also raised the NPRM in connection with arguing whether the established maximum\nallowable operating pressure (MAOP), not the current actual operating pressure, is used for\nregulatory classification purposes. The Final Order discussed this portion of the NPRM in the\nfollowing manner:\nPrior PHMSA pipeline enforcement proceedings and interpretations make\nit clear that the established MAOP, not the current actual operating pressure,\nis used for regulatory classification purposes.10 For example, PHMSA\nissued an Interpretation Letter stating that a pipeline that delivered gas to a\nlarge volume customer qualified as a transmission line despite the fact that\nthe pipeline actually operated at less than 20% of SMYS.11 If actual\noperating pressure could be used, there would be nothing stopping an\noperator from easily configuring its line to raise the pressure as high as the\nestablished MAOP at times and lower it at other times causing uncertainty\nin the classification and affecting the applicability of various maintenance\nrequirements. Thus, for purposes of classification as a line that operates\nabove or below 20 percent SMYS, operators must use the established\nMAOP for the pipeline when determining the hoop stress. If an operator\nwants to de-rate or lower its MAOP for whatever reason, it would need to\nbe done in a permanent manner reflected in its written procedures and\ndesign plans.\nWith regard to Respondent’s argument that its position was supported by\nthe NPRM issued by PHMSA in 2016, the preamble reveals that the impetus\nfor proposing a change to the Transmission line definition was to address\nthe demarcation between transmission and gathering lines, not between\ntransmission and distribution lines.12 While the NPRM was silent on the\nreason for this particular proposed change to this prong (i.e., replacing\n“operates at…” with the term MAOP), if anything the absence of discussion\nimplies that this was a clarification to existing policy and practice as\nopposed to being needed to drive a significant change in behavior.\nTherefore, Respondent’s pipeline operates at a hoop stress above 20 percent\nSMYS for purposes of classification and the second prong in the definition\nof transmission line is met.\n10 See, e.g., Breitburn Energy Partners, LP, Final Order, CPF No. 5-2009-0008 (Apr. 2, 2012).\n11 PHMSA Interp. No. 01-0102 (Feb. 15, 2001).\n12 Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission and Gathering Lines, (81 Fed. Reg. 20807). This NPRM has not\nbecome a final rule.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-0005M\nPage 5\nThe Petition does not provide any explanation or argument as to what, if anything, about the\nanalysis in the Final Order of the NPRM content was erroneous. I fully considered Susanville’s\narguments citing the NPRM and found them unpersuasive for the reasons stated in the Final\nOrder. There is nothing in the Petition that would warrant a change in this conclusion. If a\nfuture rulemaking proceeding in this area becomes final and takes effect, Susanville can\nsubsequently request that OPS review the classification of its pipeline under that future\nregulation. Like any enforcement case, however, I must decide this case under the existing\nregulations.\nWith respect to the second issue, Susanville questioned whether the location where its large\nvolume customers were connected to the pipeline may constitute a connection or branch that\nwould warrant changing the transmission line classification to distribution line for the portion of\nthe pipeline extending between that location and the Susanville City Gate station. Presumably,\nSusanville is conceding that the portion of the 10-mile pipeline upstream of the large volume\ncustomers is a transmission line, but would argue that this does not mean the portion downstream\nof that point could not be a distribution line. Susanville, however, did not present facts in its\nPetition that would establish that the location where the large volume customers received gas\nwas a distribution center. Even if Susanville had attempted to do so, this argument would\npresumably be negated by the second prong of the definition of a transmission line which\ninvolves a determination on whether the pipeline operates at a hoop stress of 20 percent or more\nof specified minimum yield strength (SMYS). The established MAOP of the pipeline currently\napplies to its entire length.13 Susanville did not provide any documentation or evidence that it\nhas taken any steps to permanently de-rate the MAOP of the portion of the pipeline downstream\nfrom the large volume customers during the proceeding or in connection with its Petition.\nRELIEF DENIED\nBased on the information provided in the Petition, a review of the record, and for the reasons\nstated above, I am affirming the Order without modification.\nThis Decision is the final administrative action in this proceeding.\nJune 19, 2019\n_____________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n13 Final Order at 4-5.","truncated":false,"body_characters":30041}