{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520180007","title":"CITY OF VERNON — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2018-08-02","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.1007(b), 192.1007(c), 192.1007(d), 192.1007(e), 192.1007(f), 192.465(d), 192.605(a), 192.605(c), 192.616(i).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520180007.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520180007.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520180007","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520180007","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving CITY OF VERNON. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.1007(b),  192.1007(c),  192.1007(d),  192.1007(e),  192.1007(f),  192.465(d),  192.605(a),  192.605(c),  192.616(i). The case was opened on 2018-08-02 and is reported as closed as of 2019-11-15. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520180007_Closure Letter_11152019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180007/520180007_Closure%20Letter_11152019.pdf\n\n520180007_Closure Letter_11152019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180007/520180007_Closure%20Letter_11152019_text.pdf\n\n520180007_Final Order_06192019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180007/520180007_Final%20Order_06192019.pdf\n\n520180007_Final Order_06192019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180007/520180007_Final%20Order_06192019_text.pdf\n\n520180007_NOPV PCO_08022018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180007/520180007_NOPV%20PCO_08022018.pdf\n\n520180007_NOPV PCO_08022018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180007/520180007_NOPV%20PCO_08022018_text.pdf\n\n520180007_Operator Response to Notice_09042018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180007/520180007_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_09042018.pdf\n\n520180007_Closure Letter_11152019_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nNovember 15, 2019\nMr. Abraham Alemu\nInterim General Manager\nCity of Vernon Public Utilities\n4305 S. Santa Fe Avenue\nVernon, CA 90058\nCPF 5-2018-0007\nCPF 5-2018-0008\nClosure Letter\nDear Mr. Alemu:\nOn June 19, 2019, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to the City of Vernon Public Utilities (Vernon) a Final Order in the above-referenced\ncases. Each of these Final Orders included a Compliance Order. Based on our review of the\ndocumentation during our follow-up inspection on October 15-16, 2019, it has been\ndetermined that you have complied with the terms of both of these Final Orders.\nAccordingly, these cases are now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to\nthe matters involved in these cases. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nDustin Hubbard\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 J. Dunphy (#156372 & #156114)\nDennis Lee, CPUC\n\n520180007_Final Order_06192019_text.pdf\n\nJune 19, 2019\nHonorable Yvette Woodruff-Perez\nMayor\nCity of Vernon\n4305 Santa Fe Avenue\nVernon, California 90058\nRe: CPF No. 5-2018-0007\nDear Ms. Woodruff-Perez:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and finds that the City of Vernon Public Utilities Department must complete the actions\nspecified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the\ncompliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director, Western Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon\nthe date of mailing, as 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\nMs. Kelly Nguyen, General Manager, City of Vernon Public Utilities Department\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 Vernon, California, ) CPF No. 5-2018-0007\na municipal corporation, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn April 24 through 27 and May 22 through 26, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117,\nrepresentatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and\nrecords of the City of Vernon Public Utilities Department (Vernon or Respondent) in Vernon,\nCalifornia. Respondent is the natural gas utility of the City of Vernon that provides gas\ndistribution service to approximately 113,000 residents and businesses.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated August 2, 2018, 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 Vernon had violated\n49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the\nalleged violations. The warning items required no further action, but warned the operator to\ncorrect the probable violations or face possible future enforcement action.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated September 4, 2018 (Response). Vernon did\nnot contest the allegations of violation and agreed to complete the proposed compliance actions.\nRespondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Vernon did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(c), which states:\n1 See http://www.cityofvernon.org/departments/public-utilities (Current as of March 11, 2019).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2018-0007\nPage 2\n§ 192.1007 What are the required elements of an integrity management\nplan?\nA written integrity management plan must contain procedures for\ndeveloping and implementing the following elements:\n(a) ...\n(c) Evaluate and rank risk. An operator must evaluate the risks\nassociated with its distribution pipeline. In this evaluation, the operator must\ndetermine the relative importance of each threat and estimate and rank the\nrisks posed to its pipeline. This evaluation must consider each applicable\ncurrent and potential threat, the likelihood of failure associated with each\nthreat, and the potential consequences of such a failure. An operator may\nsubdivide its pipeline into regions with similar characteristics (e.g.,\ncontiguous areas within a distribution pipeline consisting of mains, services\nand other appurtenances; areas with common materials or environmental\nfactors), and for which similar actions likely would be effective in reducing\nrisk.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(c) by failing to develop and\nimplement procedures to evaluate the risks associated with its distribution pipeline. Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that Vernon did not have a threat evaluation and risk-ranking model in its\nDistribution Integrity Management Plan (DIMP). Although Vernon used an online tool known\nas the “Simple Handy Risk-Based Integrity Management Plan” (SHRIMP) to develop its DIMP,\nRespondent lacked the data required for SHRIMP to make a meaningful evaluation of risk.\nRespondent failed to recognize that in the absence of meaningful data, further action was\nrequired to create and implement a meaningful evaluation and risk ranking model.\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. § 192.1007(c) by failing to evaluate\nthe risks associated with its distribution pipeline.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(b), which states:\n§ 192.1007 What are the required elements of an integrity management\nplan?\n(a) ...\n(b) Identify threats. The operator must consider the following categories\nof threats to each gas distribution pipeline: corrosion, natural forces,\nexcavation damage, other outside force damage, material or welds,\nequipment failure, incorrect operations, and other concerns that could\nthreaten the integrity of its pipeline. An operator must consider reasonably\navailable information to identify existing and potential threats. Sources of\ndata may include, but are not limited to, incident and leak history, corrosion\ncontrol records, continuing surveillance records, patrolling records,\nmaintenance history, and excavation damage experience.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(b) by failing to consider and\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2018-0007\nPage 3\nidentify corrosion and other threats to its gas distribution pipeline. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that although Vernon’s gas distribution system contains several steel service risers and\nsteel transition piping at the city gates, it failed to consider available information that might\nidentify those as existing and potential corrosion threats and failed to consider external\ninformation to identify other threats to their gas distribution system.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nthe evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(b) by failing to consider and\nidentify corrosion as a threat to its gas distribution system.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(d), which states:\n§ 192.1007 What are the required elements of an integrity management\nplan?\n(a) ...\n(d) Identify and implement measures to address risks. Determine and\nimplement measures designed to reduce the risks from failure of its gas\ndistribution pipeline. These measures must include an effective leak\nmanagement program (unless all leaks are repaired when found).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(d) by failing to determine and\nimplement measures designed to reduce the risks from failure of its gas distribution pipeline.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent only relied on SHRIMP to identify risks to its\nsystem and failed to consider its unique system to determine and implement measures designed\nto reduce failure risks based on identified threats.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nthe evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(d) by failing to identify and\nimplement measures designed to reduce the risks from failure of its gas distribution pipeline.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(e), which states:\n§ 192.1007 What are the required elements of an integrity management\nplan?\n(a) ...\n(e) Measure performance, monitor results, and evaluate effectiveness.\n(1) Develop and monitor performance measures from an established\nbaseline to evaluate the effectiveness of its IM program. An operator must\nconsider the results of its performance monitoring in periodically re-\nevaluating the threats and risks. These performance measures must include\nthe following:\n(i) Number of hazardous leaks either eliminated or repaired as required\nby § 192.703(c) of this subchapter (or total number of leaks if all leaks are\nrepaired when found), categorized by cause;\n(ii) Number of excavation damages;\n(iii) Number of excavation tickets (receipt of information by the\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2018-0007\nPage 4\nunderground facility operator from the notification center);\n(iv) Total number of leaks either eliminated or repaired, categorized by\ncause;\n(v) Number of hazardous leaks either eliminated or repaired as required\nby § 192.703(c) (or total number of leaks if all leaks are repaired when\nfound), categorized by material; and\n(vi) Any additional measures the operator determines are needed to\nevaluate the effectiveness of the operator's IM program in controlling each\nidentified threat.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(e) by failing to develop and\nmonitor performance measures from an established baseline to evaluate the effectiveness of its\nDIMP. Specifically, Vernon failed to consider the results of its performance monitoring in\nperiodically re-evaluating the threats and risk by failing to keep track of the number of\nexcavation tickets.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nthe evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(e) by failing to develop and\nmonitor performance measures from an established baseline to evaluate the effectiveness of its\nDIMP.\nItem 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d), which states:\n§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) ...\n(d) Each operator shall take prompt remedial action to correct any\ndeficiencies indicated by the monitoring.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d) by failing to take prompt\nremedial action to correct deficiencies indicated by monitoring of external corrosion control. In\nresponse to corrosion inspection and monitoring reports for 2014, 2015 and 2016 that listed four\nisolated steel risers as having deficient cathodic protection pipe-to-soil readings of greater\nthan -850mV, Respondent failed to take prompt remedial action.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nthe evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d) by failing to take prompt\nremedial action in response to corrosion reports.\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, 4 and 9 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.1007(c), (b), (d), (e), and 192.465, respectively. Under 49 U.S.C.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2018-0007\nPage 5\n§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a\npipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under\nchapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217,\nRespondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety\nregulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.1007(c) (Item 1), Respondent must\ndevelop and implement a process to evaluate system threats and rank the risk\neach threat poses. This process must be separate from the “Simple Handy\nRisk-Based Integrity Management Plan” (SHRIMP) software.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 192.1007(b) (Item 2), Respondent must\namend its DIMP to identify corrosion as a threat and include a process to\nidentify and use external information to assist in identifying threats to the\nVernon distribution system.\n3. With respect to the violation of § 192.1007(d) (Item 3), Respondent must\nidentify and implement measures designed to reduce the risk of failure on\nits gas distribution pipeline.\n4. With respect to the violation of § 192.1007(e) (Item 4), Respondent must\ndevelop and implement a process or processes requiring: 1) the development\nof meaningful DIMP performance measures; 2) the collection and analysis of\ndata (including the number of excavation tickets and other appropriate data) to\nsupport the selected performance measures; and 3) an annual review and\neffectiveness evaluation of the DIMP and performance measures.\n5. With respect to the violation of § 192.465(d) (Item 9), Respondent must install\nappropriate cathodic protection on the isolated steel risers, replace the steel\nrisers with anodeless risers, or abandon the isolated steel risers.\n6. Vernon must complete the remedial requirements of this Compliance Order\nwithin 180 days after receipt of this Final Order and submit documentation to\nthe Director that the remedial requirements have been completed within 210\ndays of receipt of this Final 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.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the\nDirector. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated\nwith preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated\nwith replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2018-0007\nPage 6\neach day 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, 6, 7 and 8, 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\nwarning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(f) (Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to re-evaluate\nthreats and risks on its entire pipeline and consider the relevance of threats in one\nlocation to other areas at least every five years;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to review and\nupdate its procedural manual during calendar years 2012, 2013, 2015, and 2016;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.616(i) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to produce\nrecords to document the annual program audit of its Public Awareness Program\n(PAP); and\n49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c) (Item 8) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to perform the\nProgram Effectiveness Evaluation in accordance with API RP 1162 (incorporated\nby reference, see § 192.7).\nIf OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be\nsubject 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.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nJune 19, 2019\n__________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":18876}