{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520170016","title":"CITY OF VICTORVILLE — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2017-11-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.16(b), 192.227(a), 192.285(a), 192.615(c), 192.616(c), 192.619.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520170016.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520170016.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520170016","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520170016","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving CITY OF VICTORVILLE. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.16(b),  192.227(a),  192.285(a),  192.615(c),  192.616(c),  192.619. The case was opened on 2017-11-22 and is reported as closed as of 2018-11-13. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520170016_Closure Letter_11132018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520170016/520170016_Closure%20Letter_11132018.pdf\n\n520170016_Closure Letter_11132018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520170016/520170016_Closure%20Letter_11132018_text.pdf\n\n520170016_Final Order_05032018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520170016/520170016_Final%20Order_05032018.pdf\n\n520170016_Final Order_05032018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520170016/520170016_Final%20Order_05032018_text.pdf\n\n520170016_NOPV PCO_11222017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520170016/520170016_NOPV%20PCO_11222017.pdf\n\n520170016_NOPV PCO_11222017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520170016/520170016_NOPV%20PCO_11222017_text.pdf\n\n520170016_Operator Response to Notice_12202017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520170016/520170016_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_12202017.pdf\n\n520170016_Closure Letter_11132018_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nNovember 13, 2018\nHon. Gloria Garcia, Mayor\nCity of Victorville\n14343 Civic Drive\nPO Box 5001\nVictorville, CA 92393-5001\nCPF 5-2017-0016\nClosure Letter\nDear Mayor Garcia:\nOn May 3, 2018, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to City of Victorville a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included\na Compliance Order. Based on our review of the documentation you provided on October 10,\n2018, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nKim West\nDirector, Western\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 M. Garcia (#156147)\n\n520170016_Final Order_05032018_text.pdf\n\nMay 3, 2018\nHon. Gloria Garcia, Mayor\nCity of Victorville\n14343 Civic Drive\nPO Box 5001\nVictorville, CA 92393-5001\nRe: CPF No. 5-2017-0016\nDear Mayor Garcia:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and specifies actions that need to be taken by the City of Victorville to comply with the\npipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as\ndetermined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of\nthe 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\nMr. C. Eric Ray, Airport Director, City of Victorville, 18374 Phantom West, Victorville,\nCA 92394\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 Victorville, California, ) CPF No. 5-2017-0016\na municipal corporation, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn May 8 through 10, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of the City of\nVictorville (COV or Respondent) in Victorville, California. The Victorville Municipal Utility\nServices (VMUS) is the COV department charged with operating the city’s electrical and natural\ngas distribution systems. VMUS currently offers electrical service for commercial and industrial\ncustomers at Foxborough Industrial Park and Southern California Logistics Airport (SCLA), as\nwell as 11.6 miles of natural gas service with 6-inch and 4-inch pipelines, for customers at\nSCLA.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated November 22, 2017, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that COV had committed six\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to\ncorrect the alleged violations. The warning items required no further action, but warned the\noperator to correct the probable violations or face possible future enforcement action.\nCOV responded to the Notice by letter dated December 20, 2017 (Response). The company did\nnot contest the allegations of violation but provided information concerning the corrective\nactions it had taken. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to\none.\n1 COV website, available at http://www.victorvilleca.gov/Site/CityDepartments.aspx?id=5534 (last visited Feb. 8,\n2018).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2017-0016\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Respondent did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated\n49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.16(b), which states:\n§ 192.16 Customer notification.\n(a) … .\n(b) Each operator shall notify each customer once in writing of the\nfollowing information:\n(1) The operator does not maintain the customer’s buried piping.\n(2) If the customer’s buried piping is not maintained, it may be subject to\nthe potential hazards of corrosion and leakage.\n(3) Buried gas piping should be-\n(i) Periodically inspected for leaks;\n(ii) Periodically inspected for corrosion if the piping is metallic; and\n(iii) Repaired if any unsafe condition is discovered.\n(4) When excavating near buried gas piping, the piping should be located in\nadvance, and the excavation done by hand.\n(5) The operator (if applicable), plumbing contractors, and heating\ncontractors can assist in locating, inspecting, and repairing the customer's\nburied piping.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.16(b) by failing to notify its\ncustomers once in writing of certain safety information. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nCOV failed to notify its customers in writing of the following information: (1) that COV does\nnot maintain the customer’s buried piping; (2) that if the customer’s buried piping is not\nmaintained, it may be subject to the potential hazards of corrosion and leakage; (3) that buried\ngas piping should be periodically inspected for leaks and corrosion if the piping is metallic and\nshould be repaired if any unsafe condition is discovered; (4) that when excavating near buried\ngas piping, the piping should be located in advance, and the excavation done by hand; and (5)\nthat the operator (if applicable), plumbing contractors, and heating contractors can assist in\nlocating, inspecting, and repairing the customer’s buried piping.\nAt the time of the PHMSA inspection, COV did not produce records to demonstrate that it had\nnotified customers of the information listed above, in violation of § 192.16(b).\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.16(b) by failing to notify its\ncustomers once in writing of certain safety information.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(c), which states:\n§ 192.615 Emergency plans.\n(a) … .\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2017-0016\nPage 3\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\nthat may 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\nnotifies the officials; and\n(4) Plan how the operator and officials can engage in mutual assistance to\nminimize hazards to life or property.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(c) by failing to establish and\nmaintain liaison with appropriate fire, police, and other public officials. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that during the PHMSA inspection, the Gas Distribution Coordinator for COV stated to\nOPS that COV had an airport safety meeting, but this meeting only addressed airport safety;\npipeline safety generally was not addressed. Further, no records were available at the time of\ninspection to demonstrate that the operator had liaised with appropriate fire, police, and other\npublic officials in compliance with 49 C.F.R. §192.615(c).\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(c) by failing to establish\nand maintain liaison with appropriate fire, police, and other public officials.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c), which states:\n§ 192.616 Public awareness.\n(a) … .\n(c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations,\nincluding baseline and supplemental requirements of [American Petroleum\nInstitute (API)] RP 1162, unless the operator provides justification in its\nprogram or procedural manual as to why compliance with all or certain\nprovisions of the recommended practice is not practicable and not necessary for\nsafety.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c) by failing to follow the\ngeneral program recommendations of API RP 1162, or provide a justification why compliance\nwas not practicable and not necessary for safety. Specifically, the Notice alleged that at the time\nof the PHMSA inspection, COV’s Public Awareness Manual did not have provisions for\nfollowing the general program recommendations of API RP 1162 listed below:\na) API RP 1162 Section 2.2.2 Local Public Officials;\nb) API RP 1162 Section 2.2.3 Emergency Officials;\nc) API RP 1162 Section 2.2.4 Excavators; and\nd) API RP 1162 Section 8 Program Evaluation.\nBy failing to include and follow the baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2017-0016\nPage 4\nlisted above, and not providing justification in its program or procedural manual as to why\ncompliance with these sections was not practicable and not necessary for safety, COV violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c).\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c) by failing to follow the\ngeneral program recommendations of API RP 1162, or provide a justification why compliance\nwas not practicable and not necessary for safety.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619, which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 192.619 Maximum allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic\npipelines.\n(a) No person may operate a segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a\npressure that exceeds a maximum allowable operating pressure determined\nunder paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, or the lowest of the following:\n(1) The design pressure of the weakest element in the segment, determined\nin accordance with subparts C and D of this part. However, for steel pipe in\npipelines being converted under §192.14 or uprated under subpart K of this part,\nif any variable necessary to determine the design pressure under the design\nformula (§192.105) is unknown, one of the following pressures is to be used as\ndesign pressure…\n(2) The pressure obtained by dividing the pressure to which the segment\nwas tested after construction as follows…\n(3) The highest actual operating pressure to which the segment was\nsubjected during the 5 years preceding the applicable date in the second column.\nThis pressure restriction applies unless the segment was tested according to the\nrequirements in paragraph (a)(2) of this section after the applicable date in the\nthird column or the segment was uprated according to the requirements in\nsubpart K of this part: . . . .\n(4) The pressure determined by the operator to be the maximum safe\npressure after considering the history of the segment, particularly known\ncorrosion and the actual operating pressure. . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619 by failing to determine the\nmaximum allowable operating pressure of its gas distribution pipeline system. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that at the time of the PHMSA inspection, the pipeline was operating at 55 psig\nbut there were no records or other substantiating evidence to demonstrate that the maximum\nallowable operating pressure had been established for the pipeline system pursuant to 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.619.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619 by failing to determine the\nmaximum allowable operating pressure of its gas distribution pipeline system.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2017-0016\nPage 5\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.16(b), 192.615(c), 192.616(c), and 192.619, respectively. Under\n49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601. The Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions\nto address Items 1, 3, and 4:\n Respondent has made the necessary changes to the General Natural Gas Service\nInformation form VMA-112, which includes all information as required by 49 C.F.R. §\n192.16(b). This revised notice was sent to all VMUS customers on December 12, 2017.\nAlso, the VMUS service application that is given to every new customer, in the section\ntitled, “Supplemental Documentation Required for Service,” now requires every new\ncustomer to initial, indicating they received the General Gas Service Information.\nRespondent also updated its procedure for Public Awareness and Damage Prevention on\nMay 24, 2017.\n Respondent has updated Section B-13.2 of its procedure for Public Awareness and\nDamage Prevention to include provisions for API 1162, Recommended Practices for\nlocal public officials, emergency officials and excavators. The Procedure has been\nupdated to include program evaluation. COV also provided the notices that were sent to\ncustomers and non-customers, public officials, emergency officials and excavators as\nrecommended by API 1162 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, and 2.2.4, as well as records showing\ncompliance with API 1162 recommended practices.\n Respondent has created a written procedure for determining the maximum allowable\noperating pressure of its distribution system. COV acquired the natural gas distribution\nsystem from the United States Air Force upon the closure of the former George Air Force\nBase. The VMUS staff has determined that any and all existing facilities that were\noperating at 20 psi while under the ownership of the Air Force will remain at 20 psi for\ntheir useful life. Any and all pipe and components that were installed after January 1,\n2005, while under the responsibility of COV, will have a maximum allowable operating\npressure of 60 psi. COV has provided various records from the past 11 years showing\npressure-test data that corresponds with the VMUS maximum allowable pressure\ndetermination.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations.\nTherefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Items 1, 3, and 4 are not included in\nthis Order.\nAs for the remaining compliance terms, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2017-0016\nPage 6\n49 C.F.R. § 190.217, I order that Respondent take the following actions to ensure compliance\nwith the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.615(c) (Item 2), Respondent must conduct\nliaison with appropriate fire, police, and other public officials to: (a) learn the\nresponsibility and resources of each governmental organization that may respond to a\ngas pipeline emergency; (b) acquaint the officials with COV’s ability in responding to\na gas pipeline emergency; (c) identify the types of gas pipeline emergencies of which\nthe operator notifies the officials; and (d) plan how the operator and officials can\nengage in mutual assistance to minimize hazards to life or property. COV must\nschedule a meeting with appropriate fire, police, and other public officials, and notify\nPHMSA in writing within 30 days of the scheduled liaison meeting so that PHMSA\nmay attend the meeting in person. Records and documentation showing compliance\nwith this requirement must be submitted to PHMSA within 180 days after receipt of\nthe Final Order letter.\nCOV stated in its Response that it conducted an Airport Emergency Plan Tabletop\nExercise on October 4, 2017, and included a PowerPoint presentation of the topics\nthat were discussed during the exercise. COV stated that slide #9 of the PowerPoint\npresentation was created specifically to discuss the information required in 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.615 and that various points concerning liaison, roles, responsibilities, and\nmutual assistance were discussed and questions were fielded.\nHowever, OPS has reviewed the content of the PowerPoint presentation and\ndetermined that it does not meet the requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 192.615(c) because\nthe presentation focused on airport safety/airplane emergencies, and not gas pipeline\nsafety/gas pipeline emergencies. I agree with the Region that the information on the\nslide was inadequate “to establish and maintain liaison with appropriate fire, police,\nand other public officials” regarding gas pipeline emergencies. OPS stated that a\nsufficient PowerPoint presentation should include discussion points/slides to acquaint\nofficials with COV’s abilities in responding to a gas pipeline emergency (e.g., the\nlocation of the pipeline and emergency valves, type of pipeline, its length and size, its\nemergency equipment and firefighting capabilities, staging area, scenario of gas leak,\nresponsibility and resources of each government organization that may respond to a\ngas pipeline emergency), the types of gas pipeline emergencies of which COV\nnotifies these officials, and how the operator and officials can engage in mutual\nassistance to minimize hazards to life or property.\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.\nIt is requested that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2017-0016\nPage 7\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\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.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 5 and 6, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to\nbe warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.227(a) (Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to demonstrate\nthat the person who welded on several above-ground pipeline installations\ncompleted in 2016 was qualified in accordance with Section 6 of API 1104 or\nsection IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code; and\n49 C.F.R. § 192.285(a) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to demonstrate\nthat the persons who made joints by fusion on several underground plastic main\nand service pipelines completed in 2013-2016 were properly qualified.\nCOV presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to address\nthe cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection,\nRespondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and\nmeet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The terms of the order, including corrective\naction, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The\nterms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nMay 3, 2018\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":22112}