# COALINGA, CITY OF — Notice of Amendment

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

Official case documents:

520160013M_Closure Letter_06202017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160013M/520160013M_Closure%20Letter_06202017.pdf

520160013M_Closure Letter_06202017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160013M/520160013M_Closure%20Letter_06202017_text.pdf

520160013M_Notice of Amendment_08312016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160013M/520160013M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_08312016.pdf

520160013M_Notice of Amendment_08312016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160013M/520160013M_Notice%20of%20Amendment_08312016_text.pdf

520160013M_Operator Response to Notice_01302017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160013M/520160013M_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_01302017.pdf

520160013M_Order Directing Amendment_05312017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160013M/520160013M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_05312017.pdf

520160013M_Order Directing Amendment_05312017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520160013M/520160013M_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_05312017_text.pdf

520160013M_Order Directing Amendment_05312017_text.pdf

May 31, 2017
Mr. Peter Preciado
Public Works and Utilities Director
City of Coalinga
155 West Durian Avenue
Coalinga, CA 93210
Re: CPF No. 5-2016-0013M
Dear Mr. Preciado:
Enclosed please find the Order Directing Amendment issued in the above-referenced case. It
makes findings of inadequate procedures and requires that the City of Coalinga amend certain of
its operating and maintenance procedures. When the amendment of procedures is completed, as
determined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of
the Order Directing Amendment 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,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Kim West, Acting Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
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 )
City of Coalinga, California, ) CPF No. 5-2016-0013M
a municipal corporation, )
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
ORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT
From November 16 to 19, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the written procedures of the City of Coalinga
in Coalinga, California (City or Respondent). The City operates its own natural gas distribution
system.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated August 31, 2016, a Notice of Amendment (Notice), alleging that the
City’s procedures for operations, maintenance, and emergencies were inadequate and proposing,
in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, that Respondent amend its procedures.1
After requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, the City responded to the Notice
by letter dated January 30, 2017 (Response), and submitted revised procedures. Respondent did
not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one. Upon review of the amended
procedures submitted by Respondent, I find that Respondent has corrected four of the five
identified inadequacies in Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Notice. However, for the reasons discussed
below, I find that Respondent still has not adequately addressed Item 5 of the Notice.
FINDING OF INADEQUATE PROCEDURES
The Notice alleged certain inadequacies in Respondent’s Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Manual and proposed requiring the City to amend its procedures to comply with the provisions
of 49 C.F.R. Part 192. In its Response, the City submitted copies of its amended procedures,
which the Director has reviewed. Accordingly, based on the results of such review, I find that
1 The Notice was issued in conjunction with a separate Notice of Probable Violation (CPF No. 5-2016-0014). A
Final Order in that case is being issued separately.



CPF No. 5-2016-0013M
Page 2
Respondent’s original procedures for Items 1, 2, 3, and 4, as described in the Notice, were
inadequate to ensure safe operation of its pipeline system, but that Respondent has corrected the
identified inadequacies. Although the City also submitted amended procedures for Item 5 in its
Response, these amended procedures still fail to address all of the inadequacies described in the
Notice. Accordingly, I find that Respondent’s procedures for Item 5 of the Notice are inadequate
to assure safe operation of its pipeline system. Pursuant to
49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, I find the following procedures to be inadequate:
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures were inadequate to ensure safe
operation of its pipeline facilities because they did not include a process to address the
effectiveness of its public awareness program, as required by 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c), which
states:
§ 192.616(c) Public awareness.
(a) Except for an operator of a master meter or petroleum gas system
covered under paragraph (j) of this section, each pipeline operator must
develop and implement a written continuing public education program that
follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum Institute’s (API)
Recommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see §192.7).
. . .
(c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations,
including baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless
the operator provides justification in its program or procedural manual as to
why compliance with all or certain provisions of the recommended practice
is not practicable and not necessary for safety.
Section 8.2 of API RP 1162 states, in relevant part:
8.2 ELEMENTS OF EVALUATION PLAN
A program evaluation plan should include the measures, means and
frequency for tracking performance. The selected set of measures should
reflect: . . . .
• Whether the program is effective—program effectiveness.
Section 8.4 and Appendix E.3 of API RP 1162 provide detailed guidance on how operators
should measure the effectiveness of their public awareness programs.
The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures did not have a process to address the
effectiveness of its public awareness program. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent’s
public awareness program did not have a written justification in its procedural manual for not
performing the measurement of its effectiveness.
In its Response, the City acknowledged that it did not have a plan to measure the effectiveness of
its public awareness program, as provided under API RP 1162, but that it had simply amended
Section XXII of its Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manual to include the following
paragraph:



CPF No. 5-2016-0013M
Page 3
Because of the small size of the City of Coalinga gas system, and
the simplicity of customer gas safety communication (bill inserts,
customer handouts, and one-call system), it is not practicable to
conduct baseline or supplemental studies of the effectiveness of the
city’s public awareness program. The baseline requirement is that
the public works director assures that the bill inserts occur twice per
year, as required.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c), an operator must follow all of the general program
recommendations contained in API RP 1162, or else provide a written justification in its program
or procedural manual as to why compliance is not practicable and not necessary for safety. Upon
review of the amendment to Section XXII of the City’s O&M Manual, as quoted above, it is
clear that Respondent has not met the requirements of § 192.616(c) because the amended
procedure states only that “[b]ecause of the small size of the City of Coalinga gas system, and
the simplicity of customer gas safety communication…,” it is not practicable to conduct baseline
or supplemental studies of the effectiveness of its public awareness program.
This amended language clearly suggests that the City’s gas system is somehow so small that it is
not practicable, to conduct any sort of self-assessment to evaluate the effectiveness of its public
awareness efforts. This is presumably because of the cost of such a process would be too great
for a small municipal gas system to bear. Even if we accept this rationale, the amended language
does not address the other requirement for justifying a failure to follow the general program
requirement in API RP 1162, namely, that such a program “is not necessary for safety.” The
process of self-evaluation is an important part of any public awareness program and enables any
operator, whether large or small, to review and evaluate the effectiveness of what it is doing to
make its customers aware of the risks associated with gas distribution systems and how they can
protect themselves in the event of an emergency. The City has failed to provide any rationale for
why such a self-evaluation process is “not necessary for safety,” no matter how small its system
may be.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent’s procedures are still inadequate to assure safe operation of
its pipeline system. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206, the City is
ordered to make the following changes to its procedures. Respondent must:
1. Revise its procedural manual to include a process for evaluating the effectiveness
of its public awareness program or provide justification in its procedural manual as to
why compliance with all or certain provisions of API RP 1162 is not practicable and
not necessary for safety, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c).
2. Submit the amended procedural manual to the Director within 30 days following
receipt of this Order.
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.



CPF No. 5-2016-0013M
Page 4
Failure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not
to exceed $200,000 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.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of
this Order Directing Amendment. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office
of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor,
Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same
address. PHMSA will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of
this Order Directing Amendment by the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of
the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition
automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate
Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all other terms and conditions of this Order Directing
Amendment are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
May 31, 2017
___________________________________ _________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

520160013M_Notice of Amendment_08312016_text.pdf

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
August 31, 2016
Mr. Peter Preciado
Public Works and Utilities Director
City of Coalinga
155 West Durian Avenue
Coalinga, CA 93210
CPF 5-2016-0013M
Dear Mr. Preciado:
On November 16-19, 2015, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected the
City of Coalinga’s (Coalinga) Natural Gas Distribution System procedural manual for
operations, maintenance, and emergencies in Coalinga, CA. On the basis of the inspection,
PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacies found within Coalinga’s plans or
procedures, as described below:
1. § 192.287 Plastic pipe: Inspection of joints.
No person may carry out the inspection of joints in plastic pipes required by
§§ 192.273(c) and 192.285(b) unless that person has been qualified by
appropriate training or experience in evaluating the acceptability of plastic pipe
joints made under the applicable joining procedure.
The City of Coalinga’s Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manual did not contain
procedures explicitly addressing the process to assure person(s) who carry out the inspection
of joints in plastic pipe were qualified by appropriate training or experience in evaluating the
acceptability of plastic pipe joints made under the applicable joining procedure.



2. § 192.615 Emergency plans.
(a) Each operator shall establish written procedures to minimize the hazard
resulting from a gas pipeline emergency. At a minimum, the procedures must
provide for the following:
(9) Safely restoring any service outage.
Coalinga’s O&M Manual did not have written procedures addressing the restoration of
services after an outage. The procedures must include steps to safely restore any service
outages to their customers following an emergency.
3. § 192.615 Emergency plans.
(b) Each operator shall:
(3) Review employee activities to determine whether the procedures were
effectively followed in each emergency.
Coalinga’s O&M Manual did not contain the process to review employee activities post
emergency to determine whether the emergency procedures were effectively followed.
4. § 192.615 Emergency plans.
(c) Each operator shall establish and maintain liaison with appropriate fire,
police, and other public officials to:
(1) Learn the responsibility and resources of each government organization that
may respond to a gas pipeline emergency;
(2) Acquaint the officials with the operator's ability in responding to a gas
pipeline emergency;
(3) Identify the types of gas pipeline emergencies of which the operator notifies
the officials; and
(4) Plan how the operator and officials can engage in mutual assistance to
minimize hazards to life or property.
The City of Coalinga did not have a process to establish and maintain liaison with appropriate
fire, police, and other public officials per Part 192.615(c). Written records to demonstrate
periodic liaison meetings were not maintained. During the inspection, the last recorded
meeting specific to this emergency plan requirement indicated it was held in 2009.
5. § 192.616 Public awareness.
(c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations, including
baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless the operator
provides justification in its program or procedural manual as to why compliance
with all or certain provisions of the recommended practice is not practicable and
not necessary for safety.
Coalinga did not have a process to address the effectiveness of its public awareness program.
Specifically the public awareness program did not have a written justification in its procedural
manual for not performing the measurement of its effectiveness.



Response to this Notice
This Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.237. Enclosed
as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in
Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be
advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being
made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies
for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document
you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for
confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted
information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond
within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the
allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to
find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.
If, after opportunity for a hearing, your plans or procedures are found inadequate as alleged in
this Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans or procedures to correct the
inadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.237). If you are not contesting this Notice, we propose that
you submit your amended procedures to my office within 60 days of receipt of this Notice.
This period may be extended by written request for good cause. Once the inadequacies
identified herein have been addressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement action
will be closed.
It is requested (not mandated) that the City of Coalinga Natural gas System maintain
documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of
Amendment (preparation/revision of plans, procedures) and submit the total to Chris Hoidal,
Director, Western Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In
correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2016-0013M and, for each
document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format to whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Chris Hoidal,
Director, Western Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry
PHP-500 Nicolas Cruz (#151443)

520160013M_Closure Letter_06202017_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
June 20, 2017
Mr. Peter Preciado
Public Works and Utilities Director
City of Coalinga
155 West Durian Avenue
Coalinga, CA 93210
CPF 5-2016-0013M
Closure Letter
Dear Mr. Preciado:
On November 16 through 19, 2015, representatives from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, conducted an on-site
pipeline safety inspection of City of Coalinga’s (Coalinga) Natural Gas Distribution System
procedural manuals for operations, maintenance, and emergencies in Coalinga, California. As a result
of the inspection, Coalinga was issued a Notice of Amendment (NOA) on August 31, 2016, which
proposed amendment of your procedures.
Coalinga submitted its second amended procedures on April 27, 2017 in response to a clarification
request. My staff reviewed the amended procedures, and it appears that all inadequacies outlined in
the Notice of Amendment were corrected.
This letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is considered closed. Thank
you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Huy Nguyen
Acting Director, Western Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry
PHP-500 N. Cruz (#151443)
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 19519