# CITY OF VERNON — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

520180007_Closure Letter_11152019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180007/520180007_Closure%20Letter_11152019.pdf

520180007_Closure Letter_11152019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180007/520180007_Closure%20Letter_11152019_text.pdf

520180007_Final Order_06192019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180007/520180007_Final%20Order_06192019.pdf

520180007_Final Order_06192019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180007/520180007_Final%20Order_06192019_text.pdf

520180007_NOPV PCO_08022018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180007/520180007_NOPV%20PCO_08022018.pdf

520180007_NOPV PCO_08022018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180007/520180007_NOPV%20PCO_08022018_text.pdf

520180007_Operator Response to Notice_09042018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180007/520180007_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_09042018.pdf

520180007_Closure Letter_11152019_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
November 15, 2019
Mr. Abraham Alemu
Interim General Manager
City of Vernon Public Utilities
4305 S. Santa Fe Avenue
Vernon, CA 90058
CPF 5-2018-0007
CPF 5-2018-0008
Closure Letter
Dear Mr. Alemu:
On June 19, 2019, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to the City of Vernon Public Utilities (Vernon) a Final Order in the above-referenced
cases. Each of these Final Orders included a Compliance Order. Based on our review of the
documentation during our follow-up inspection on October 15-16, 2019, it has been
determined that you have complied with the terms of both of these Final Orders.
Accordingly, these cases are now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to
the matters involved in these cases. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Dustin Hubbard
Director, Western Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry
PHP-500 J. Dunphy (#156372 & #156114)
Dennis Lee, CPUC

520180007_Final Order_06192019_text.pdf

June 19, 2019
Honorable Yvette Woodruff-Perez
Mayor
City of Vernon
4305 Santa Fe Avenue
Vernon, California 90058
Re: CPF No. 5-2018-0007
Dear Ms. Woodruff-Perez:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation and finds that the City of Vernon Public Utilities Department must complete the actions
specified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the
compliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director, Western Region, this
enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon
the date of mailing, as 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: Mr. Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Ms. Kelly Nguyen, General Manager, City of Vernon Public Utilities Department
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 Vernon, California, ) CPF No. 5-2018-0007
a municipal corporation, )
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On April 24 through 27 and May 22 through 26, 2017, 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 facilities and
records of the City of Vernon Public Utilities Department (Vernon or Respondent) in Vernon,
California. Respondent is the natural gas utility of the City of Vernon that provides gas
distribution service to approximately 113,000 residents and businesses.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated August 2, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed
Compliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In
accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Vernon had violated
49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the
alleged violations. The warning items required no further action, but warned the operator to
correct the probable violations or face possible future enforcement action.
Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated September 4, 2018 (Response). Vernon did
not contest the allegations of violation and agreed to complete the proposed compliance actions.
Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, Vernon did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.
Part 192, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(c), which states:
1 See http://www.cityofvernon.org/departments/public-utilities (Current as of March 11, 2019).



CPF No. 5-2018-0007
Page 2
§ 192.1007 What are the required elements of an integrity management
plan?
A written integrity management plan must contain procedures for
developing and implementing the following elements:
(a) ...
(c) Evaluate and rank risk. An operator must evaluate the risks
associated with its distribution pipeline. In this evaluation, the operator must
determine the relative importance of each threat and estimate and rank the
risks posed to its pipeline. This evaluation must consider each applicable
current and potential threat, the likelihood of failure associated with each
threat, and the potential consequences of such a failure. An operator may
subdivide its pipeline into regions with similar characteristics (e.g.,
contiguous areas within a distribution pipeline consisting of mains, services
and other appurtenances; areas with common materials or environmental
factors), and for which similar actions likely would be effective in reducing
risk.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(c) by failing to develop and
implement procedures to evaluate the risks associated with its distribution pipeline. Specifically,
the Notice alleged that Vernon did not have a threat evaluation and risk-ranking model in its
Distribution Integrity Management Plan (DIMP). Although Vernon used an online tool known
as the “Simple Handy Risk-Based Integrity Management Plan” (SHRIMP) to develop its DIMP,
Respondent lacked the data required for SHRIMP to make a meaningful evaluation of risk.
Respondent failed to recognize that in the absence of meaningful data, further action was
required to create and implement a meaningful evaluation and risk ranking model.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(c) by failing to evaluate
the risks associated with its distribution pipeline.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(b), which states:
§ 192.1007 What are the required elements of an integrity management
plan?
(a) ...
(b) Identify threats. The operator must consider the following categories
of threats to each gas distribution pipeline: corrosion, natural forces,
excavation damage, other outside force damage, material or welds,
equipment failure, incorrect operations, and other concerns that could
threaten the integrity of its pipeline. An operator must consider reasonably
available information to identify existing and potential threats. Sources of
data may include, but are not limited to, incident and leak history, corrosion
control records, continuing surveillance records, patrolling records,
maintenance history, and excavation damage experience.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(b) by failing to consider and



CPF No. 5-2018-0007
Page 3
identify corrosion and other threats to its gas distribution pipeline. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that although Vernon’s gas distribution system contains several steel service risers and
steel transition piping at the city gates, it failed to consider available information that might
identify those as existing and potential corrosion threats and failed to consider external
information to identify other threats to their gas distribution system.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(b) by failing to consider and
identify corrosion as a threat to its gas distribution system.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(d), which states:
§ 192.1007 What are the required elements of an integrity management
plan?
(a) ...
(d) Identify and implement measures to address risks. Determine and
implement measures designed to reduce the risks from failure of its gas
distribution pipeline. These measures must include an effective leak
management program (unless all leaks are repaired when found).
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(d) by failing to determine and
implement measures designed to reduce the risks from failure of its gas distribution pipeline.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent only relied on SHRIMP to identify risks to its
system and failed to consider its unique system to determine and implement measures designed
to reduce failure risks based on identified threats.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(d) by failing to identify and
implement measures designed to reduce the risks from failure of its gas distribution pipeline.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(e), which states:
§ 192.1007 What are the required elements of an integrity management
plan?
(a) ...
(e) Measure performance, monitor results, and evaluate effectiveness.
(1) Develop and monitor performance measures from an established
baseline to evaluate the effectiveness of its IM program. An operator must
consider the results of its performance monitoring in periodically re-
evaluating the threats and risks. These performance measures must include
the following:
(i) Number of hazardous leaks either eliminated or repaired as required
by § 192.703(c) of this subchapter (or total number of leaks if all leaks are
repaired when found), categorized by cause;
(ii) Number of excavation damages;
(iii) Number of excavation tickets (receipt of information by the



CPF No. 5-2018-0007
Page 4
underground facility operator from the notification center);
(iv) Total number of leaks either eliminated or repaired, categorized by
cause;
(v) Number of hazardous leaks either eliminated or repaired as required
by § 192.703(c) (or total number of leaks if all leaks are repaired when
found), categorized by material; and
(vi) Any additional measures the operator determines are needed to
evaluate the effectiveness of the operator's IM program in controlling each
identified threat.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(e) by failing to develop and
monitor performance measures from an established baseline to evaluate the effectiveness of its
DIMP. Specifically, Vernon failed to consider the results of its performance monitoring in
periodically re-evaluating the threats and risk by failing to keep track of the number of
excavation tickets.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(e) by failing to develop and
monitor performance measures from an established baseline to evaluate the effectiveness of its
DIMP.
Item 9: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d), which states:
§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.
(a) ...
(d) Each operator shall take prompt remedial action to correct any
deficiencies indicated by the monitoring.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d) by failing to take prompt
remedial action to correct deficiencies indicated by monitoring of external corrosion control. In
response to corrosion inspection and monitoring reports for 2014, 2015 and 2016 that listed four
isolated steel risers as having deficient cathodic protection pipe-to-soil readings of greater
than -850mV, Respondent failed to take prompt remedial action.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(d) by failing to take prompt
remedial action in response to corrosion reports.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.1007(c), (b), (d), (e), and 192.465, respectively. Under 49 U.S.C.



CPF No. 5-2018-0007
Page 5
§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a
pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under
chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217,
Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety
regulations applicable to its operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 192.1007(c) (Item 1), Respondent must
develop and implement a process to evaluate system threats and rank the risk
each threat poses. This process must be separate from the “Simple Handy
Risk-Based Integrity Management Plan” (SHRIMP) software.
2. With respect to the violation of § 192.1007(b) (Item 2), Respondent must
amend its DIMP to identify corrosion as a threat and include a process to
identify and use external information to assist in identifying threats to the
Vernon distribution system.
3. With respect to the violation of § 192.1007(d) (Item 3), Respondent must
identify and implement measures designed to reduce the risk of failure on
its gas distribution pipeline.
4. With respect to the violation of § 192.1007(e) (Item 4), Respondent must
develop and implement a process or processes requiring: 1) the development
of meaningful DIMP performance measures; 2) the collection and analysis of
data (including the number of excavation tickets and other appropriate data) to
support the selected performance measures; and 3) an annual review and
effectiveness evaluation of the DIMP and performance measures.
5. With respect to the violation of § 192.465(d) (Item 9), Respondent must install
appropriate cathodic protection on the isolated steel risers, replace the steel
risers with anodeless risers, or abandon the isolated steel risers.
6. Vernon must complete the remedial requirements of this Compliance Order
within 180 days after receipt of this Final Order and submit documentation to
the Director that the remedial requirements have been completed within 210
days of receipt of this Final 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.
It is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the
Director. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated
with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated
with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for



CPF No. 5-2018-0007
Page 6
each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a
district court of the United States.
WARNING ITEMS
With respect to Items 5, 6, 7 and 8, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did not
propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered
warning items. The warnings were for:
49 C.F.R. § 192.1007(f) (Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to re-evaluate
threats and risks on its entire pipeline and consider the relevance of threats in one
location to other areas at least every five years;
49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to review and
update its procedural manual during calendar years 2012, 2013, 2015, and 2016;
49 C.F.R. § 192.616(i) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to produce
records to document the annual program audit of its Public Awareness Program
(PAP); and
49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c) (Item 8) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to perform the
Program Effectiveness Evaluation in accordance with API RP 1162 (incorporated
by reference, see § 192.7).
If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be
subject to future enforcement action.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final
Order to the 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, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this
Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and
meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The terms of the order, including corrective
action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
June 19, 2019
__________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 18876