{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520160013M","title":"COALINGA, CITY OF — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2016-08-31","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 192.287, 192.615(a)(9), 192.615(b)(3), 192.615(c), 192.616(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520160013m.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520160013m.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520160013m","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520160013M","body":"Notice of Amendment involving COALINGA, CITY OF. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.287,  192.615(a)(9),  192.615(b)(3),  192.615(c),  192.616(c). The case was opened on 2016-08-31 and is reported as closed as of 2017-06-20. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520160013M_Closure Letter_06202017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160013M/520160013M_Closure%20Letter_06202017.pdf\n\n520160013M_Closure Letter_06202017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160013M/520160013M_Closure%20Letter_06202017_text.pdf\n\n520160013M_Notice of Amendment_08312016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160013M/520160013M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_08312016.pdf\n\n520160013M_Notice of Amendment_08312016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160013M/520160013M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_08312016_text.pdf\n\n520160013M_Operator Response to Notice_01302017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160013M/520160013M_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_01302017.pdf\n\n520160013M_Order Directing Amendment_05312017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160013M/520160013M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_05312017.pdf\n\n520160013M_Order Directing Amendment_05312017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160013M/520160013M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_05312017_text.pdf\n\n520160013M_Order Directing Amendment_05312017_text.pdf\n\nMay 31, 2017\nMr. Peter Preciado\nPublic Works and Utilities Director\nCity of Coalinga\n155 West Durian Avenue\nCoalinga, CA 93210\nRe: CPF No. 5-2016-0013M\nDear Mr. Preciado:\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 Coalinga amend certain of\nits operating and maintenance procedures. When the amendment of procedures is completed, as\ndetermined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of\nthe Order Directing Amendment 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,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ms. Kim West, Acting 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 Coalinga, California, ) CPF No. 5-2016-0013M\na municipal corporation, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT\nFrom November 16 to 19, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the written procedures of the City of Coalinga\nin Coalinga, California (City or Respondent). The City operates its own natural gas distribution\nsystem.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated August 31, 2016, a Notice of Amendment (Notice), alleging that the\nCity’s procedures for operations, maintenance, and emergencies were inadequate and proposing,\nin accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, that Respondent amend its procedures.1\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, the City responded to the Notice\nby letter dated January 30, 2017 (Response), and submitted revised procedures. Respondent did\nnot request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one. Upon review of the amended\nprocedures submitted by Respondent, I find that Respondent has corrected four of the five\nidentified inadequacies in Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Notice. However, for the reasons discussed\nbelow, I find that Respondent still has not adequately addressed Item 5 of the Notice.\nFINDING OF INADEQUATE PROCEDURES\nThe Notice alleged certain inadequacies in Respondent’s Operations and Maintenance (O&M)\nManual and proposed requiring the City to amend its procedures to comply with the provisions\nof 49 C.F.R. Part 192. In its Response, the City submitted copies of its amended procedures,\nwhich the Director has reviewed. Accordingly, based on the results of such review, I find that\n1 The Notice was issued in conjunction with a separate Notice of Probable Violation (CPF No. 5-2016-0014). A\nFinal Order in that case is being issued separately.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-0013M\nPage 2\nRespondent’s original procedures for Items 1, 2, 3, and 4, as described in the Notice, were\ninadequate to ensure safe operation of its pipeline system, but that Respondent has corrected the\nidentified inadequacies. Although the City also submitted amended procedures for Item 5 in its\nResponse, these amended procedures still fail to address all of the inadequacies described in the\nNotice. Accordingly, I find that Respondent’s procedures for Item 5 of the Notice are inadequate\nto assure safe operation of its pipeline system. Pursuant to\n49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, I find the following procedures to be inadequate:\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate to ensure safe\noperation of its pipeline facilities because they did not include a process to address the\neffectiveness of its public awareness program, as required by 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c), which\nstates:\n§ 192.616(c) Public awareness.\n(a) Except for an operator of a master meter or petroleum gas system\ncovered under paragraph (j) of this section, each pipeline operator must\ndevelop and implement a written continuing public education program that\nfollows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute’s (API)\nRecommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see §192.7).\n. . .\n(c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations,\nincluding baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless\nthe operator provides justification in its program or procedural manual as to\nwhy compliance with all or certain provisions of the recommended practice\nis not practicable and not necessary for safety.\nSection 8.2 of API RP 1162 states, in relevant part:\n8.2 ELEMENTS OF EVALUATION PLAN\nA program evaluation plan should include the measures, means and\nfrequency for tracking performance. The selected set of measures should\nreflect: . . . .\n• Whether the program is effective—program effectiveness.\nSection 8.4 and Appendix E.3 of API RP 1162 provide detailed guidance on how operators\nshould measure the effectiveness of their public awareness programs.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures did not have a process to address the\neffectiveness of its public awareness program. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent’s\npublic awareness program did not have a written justification in its procedural manual for not\nperforming the measurement of its effectiveness.\nIn its Response, the City acknowledged that it did not have a plan to measure the effectiveness of\nits public awareness program, as provided under API RP 1162, but that it had simply amended\nSection XXII of its Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manual to include the following\nparagraph:\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-0013M\nPage 3\nBecause of the small size of the City of Coalinga gas system, and\nthe simplicity of customer gas safety communication (bill inserts,\ncustomer handouts, and one-call system), it is not practicable to\nconduct baseline or supplemental studies of the effectiveness of the\ncity’s public awareness program. The baseline requirement is that\nthe public works director assures that the bill inserts occur twice per\nyear, as required.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c), an operator must follow all of the general program\nrecommendations contained in API RP 1162, or else provide a written justification in its program\nor procedural manual as to why compliance is not practicable and not necessary for safety. Upon\nreview of the amendment to Section XXII of the City’s O&M Manual, as quoted above, it is\nclear that Respondent has not met the requirements of § 192.616(c) because the amended\nprocedure states only that “[b]ecause of the small size of the City of Coalinga gas system, and\nthe simplicity of customer gas safety communication…,” it is not practicable to conduct baseline\nor supplemental studies of the effectiveness of its public awareness program.\nThis amended language clearly suggests that the City’s gas system is somehow so small that it is\nnot practicable, to conduct any sort of self-assessment to evaluate the effectiveness of its public\nawareness efforts. This is presumably because of the cost of such a process would be too great\nfor a small municipal gas system to bear. Even if we accept this rationale, the amended language\ndoes not address the other requirement for justifying a failure to follow the general program\nrequirement in API RP 1162, namely, that such a program “is not necessary for safety.” The\nprocess of self-evaluation is an important part of any public awareness program and enables any\noperator, whether large or small, to review and evaluate the effectiveness of what it is doing to\nmake its customers aware of the risks associated with gas distribution systems and how they can\nprotect themselves in the event of an emergency. The City has failed to provide any rationale for\nwhy such a self-evaluation process is “not necessary for safety,” no matter how small its system\nmay be.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent’s procedures are still inadequate to assure safe operation of\nits pipeline system. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, the City is\nordered to make the following changes to its procedures. Respondent must:\n1. Revise its procedural manual to include a process for evaluating the effectiveness\nof its public awareness program or provide justification in its procedural manual as to\nwhy compliance with all or certain provisions of API RP 1162 is not practicable and\nnot necessary for safety, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c).\n2. Submit the amended procedural manual to the Director within 30 days following\nreceipt of this Order.\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\nCPF No. 5-2016-0013M\nPage 4\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not\nto exceed $200,000 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.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Order Directing Amendment. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office\nof Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor,\nWashington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same\naddress. PHMSA will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of\nthis Order Directing Amendment by the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of\nthe issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate\nAdministrator, upon request, grants a stay, all other terms and conditions of this Order Directing\nAmendment are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nMay 31, 2017\n___________________________________ _________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n520160013M_Notice of Amendment_08312016_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nAugust 31, 2016\nMr. Peter Preciado\nPublic Works and Utilities Director\nCity of Coalinga\n155 West Durian Avenue\nCoalinga, CA 93210\nCPF 5-2016-0013M\nDear Mr. Preciado:\nOn November 16-19, 2015, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected the\nCity of Coalinga’s (Coalinga) Natural Gas Distribution System procedural manual for\noperations, maintenance, and emergencies in Coalinga, CA. On the basis of the inspection,\nPHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within Coalinga’s plans or\nprocedures, as described below:\n1. § 192.287 Plastic pipe: Inspection of joints.\nNo person may carry out the inspection of joints in plastic pipes required by\n§§ 192.273(c) and 192.285(b) unless that person has been qualified by\nappropriate training or experience in evaluating the acceptability of plastic pipe\njoints made under the applicable joining procedure.\nThe City of Coalinga’s Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manual did not contain\nprocedures explicitly addressing the process to assure person(s) who carry out the inspection\nof joints in plastic pipe were qualified by appropriate training or experience in evaluating the\nacceptability of plastic pipe joints made under the applicable joining procedure.\n\n\n\n2. § 192.615 Emergency plans.\n(a) Each operator shall establish written procedures to minimize the hazard\nresulting from a gas pipeline emergency. At a minimum, the procedures must\nprovide for the following:\n(9) Safely restoring any service outage.\nCoalinga’s O&M Manual did not have written procedures addressing the restoration of\nservices after an outage. The procedures must include steps to safely restore any service\noutages to their customers following an emergency.\n3. § 192.615 Emergency plans.\n(b) Each operator shall:\n(3) Review employee activities to determine whether the procedures were\neffectively followed in each emergency.\nCoalinga’s O&M Manual did not contain the process to review employee activities post\nemergency to determine whether the emergency procedures were effectively followed.\n4. § 192.615 Emergency plans.\n(c) Each operator shall establish and maintain liaison with appropriate fire,\npolice, and other public officials to:\n(1) Learn the responsibility and resources of each government organization that\nmay respond to a gas pipeline emergency;\n(2) Acquaint the officials with the operator's ability in responding to a gas\npipeline emergency;\n(3) Identify the types of gas pipeline emergencies of which the operator notifies\nthe officials; and\n(4) Plan how the operator and officials can engage in mutual assistance to\nminimize hazards to life or property.\nThe City of Coalinga did not have a process to establish and maintain liaison with appropriate\nfire, police, and other public officials per Part 192.615(c). Written records to demonstrate\nperiodic liaison meetings were not maintained. During the inspection, the last recorded\nmeeting specific to this emergency plan requirement indicated it was held in 2009.\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.\nCoalinga did not have a process to address the effectiveness of its public awareness program.\nSpecifically the public awareness program did not have a written justification in its procedural\nmanual for not performing the measurement of its effectiveness.\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 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 the City of Coalinga Natural 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 5-2016-0013M and, for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format to whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal,\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 Nicolas Cruz (#151443)\n\n520160013M_Closure Letter_06202017_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJune 20, 2017\nMr. Peter Preciado\nPublic Works and Utilities Director\nCity of Coalinga\n155 West Durian Avenue\nCoalinga, CA 93210\nCPF 5-2016-0013M\nClosure Letter\nDear Mr. Preciado:\nOn November 16 through 19, 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 City of Coalinga’s (Coalinga) Natural Gas Distribution System\nprocedural manuals for operations, maintenance, and emergencies in Coalinga, California. As a result\nof the inspection, Coalinga was issued a Notice of Amendment (NOA) on August 31, 2016, which\nproposed amendment of your procedures.\nCoalinga submitted its second amended procedures on April 27, 2017 in response to a clarification\nrequest. My staff reviewed the amended procedures, and it appears that all inadequacies outlined in\nthe Notice of Amendment were corrected.\nThis letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is considered closed. Thank\nyou for your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nHuy Nguyen\nActing Director, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 N. Cruz (#151443)","truncated":false,"body_characters":19519}