{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520180008","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 192.911(l), 192.915, 192.917(a), 192.917(b), 192.917(c), 192.921(a)(1), 192.935(d)(1), 192.935(d)(2), 192.945(a), 192.947(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520180008.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520180008.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520180008","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520180008","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving CITY OF VERNON. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.911(l),  192.915,  192.917(a),  192.917(b),  192.917(c),  192.921(a)(1),  192.935(d)(1),  192.935(d)(2),  192.945(a),  192.947(d). 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\n520180008_Closure Letter_11152019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180008/520180008_Closure%20Letter_11152019.pdf\n\n520180008_Closure Letter_11152019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180008/520180008_Closure%20Letter_11152019_text.pdf\n\n520180008_Final Order_06192019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180008/520180008_Final%20Order_06192019.pdf\n\n520180008_Final Order_06192019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180008/520180008_Final%20Order_06192019_text.pdf\n\n520180008_NOPV PCO_08022018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180008/520180008_NOPV%20PCO_08022018.pdf\n\n520180008_NOPV PCO_08022018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180008/520180008_NOPV%20PCO_08022018_text.pdf\n\n520180008_Operator Response to Notice_09042018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180008/520180008_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_09042018.pdf\n\n520180008_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\n520180008_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. 5-2018-0008\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. 5-2018-0008\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. § 192.921(a), which states:\n1 See http://www.cityofvernon.org/departments/public-utilities (Current as of March 11, 2019).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2018-0008\nPage 2\n§ 192.921 How is the baseline assessment to be conducted?\n(a) Assessment methods. An operator must assess the integrity of the\nline pipe in each covered segment by applying one or more of the following\nmethods depending on the threats to which the covered segment is\nsusceptible. An operator must select the method or methods best suited to\naddress the threats identified to the covered segment (See § 192.917).\n(1) Internal inspection tool or tools capable of detecting corrosion, and\nany other threats to which the covered segment is susceptible. An operator\nmust follow ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7),\nsection 6.2 in selecting the appropriate internal inspection tools for the\ncovered segment.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.921(a) by failing to assess the\nintegrity of the line pipe in each covered segment. Specifically, Vernon conducted an in-line\ninspection (ILI) in 2013 as its baseline assessment. Direct examination of ILI defect indications\nis required by ASME B31.8S-2004, Section 6.2.6 Examination and Evaluation, which is\nincorporated by reference into Part 192. During the inspection, statements made by Vernon staff\nand a consultant confirmed that Vernon did not conduct direct examination and evaluation of\nidentified defect indications called out by the ILI tool, therefore failing to assess the integrity of\nthe covered segments.\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. § 192.921(a) by failing to assess the\nintegrity of the line pipe in each covered segment.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.947(d), which states:\n§ 192.947 What records must an operator keep?\nAn operator must maintain, for the useful life of the pipeline, records\nthat demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this subpart. At\nminimum, an operator must maintain the following records for review\nduring an inspection.\n(a) ...\n(d) Documents to support any decision, analysis and process developed\nand used to implement and evaluate each element of the baseline assessment\nplan and integrity management program. Documents include those\ndeveloped and used in support of any identification, calculation,\namendment, modification, justification, deviation and determination made,\nand any action taken to implement and evaluate any of the program\nelements;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.947(d) by failing to maintain\nrecords that demonstrate compliance with the transmission pipeline integrity management\nrequirements of Subpart O. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent did not maintain\ndocuments of the annual review of the Vernon Transmission Integrity Management Program\n(IMP). Additionally, the Notice alleged Vernon failed to document a Management of Change\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2018-0008\nPage 3\n(MOC) process when changing integrity assessment methods from external corrosion direct\nassessment (ECDA) to ILI.\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. § 192.947(d) by failing to maintain\nrecords that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Subpart O.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.935(d), which states:\n§ 192.935 What additional preventive and mitigative measures must an\noperator take?\n(a) General requirements. An operator must take additional measures\nbeyond those already required by Part 192 to prevent a pipeline failure and\nto mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure in a high consequence\narea...\n(d) Pipelines operating below 30% SMYS. An operator of a\ntransmission pipeline operating below 30% SMYS located in a high\nconsequence area must follow the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and\n(d)(2) of this section ...\n(1) Apply the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(iii) of this\nsection to the pipeline; and\n(2) Either monitor excavations near the pipeline, or conduct patrols as\nrequired by § 192.705 of the pipeline at bi-monthly intervals. If an operator\nfinds any indication of unreported construction activity, the operator must\nconduct a follow up investigation to determine if mechanical damage has\noccurred.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.935(d) by failing to apply the\nrequirements in paragraphs (b)(1) of this section and to either monitor excavations or conduct\npatrols to prevent a pipeline failure and to mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure in high\nconsequence areas (HCAs). Specifically, the Notice alleged that Vernon, an operator of a\ntransmission line operating below 30% SMYS located in an HCA, failed to address any of the\nrequirements of § 192.935(d) and failed to include in its IMP a process to address the\nrequirements of § 192.935(d).\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. § 192.935(d) by failing to apply the\nrequirements in paragraphs (b)(1) of this section and to either monitor excavations or conduct\npatrols to prevent a pipeline failure and to mitigate the consequences of a failure in an HCA.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917, which states:\n§ 192.917 How does an operator identify potential threats to pipeline\nintegrity and use the threat identification in its integrity program?\n(a) Threat identification. An operator must identify and evaluate all\npotential threats to each covered pipeline segment. Potential threats that an\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2018-0008\nPage 4\noperator must consider include, but are not limited to, the threats listed in\nASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7), section 2,\nwhich are grouped under the following four categories:\n(1) Time dependent threats such as internal corrosion, external\ncorrosion, and stress corrosion cracking;\n(2) Static or resident threats, such as fabrication or construction defects;\n(3) Time independent threats such as third party damage and outside\nforce damage; and\n(4) Human error.\n(b) Data gathering and integration. To identify and evaluate the\npotential threats to a covered pipeline segment, an operator must gather and\nintegrate existing data and information on the entire pipeline that could be\nrelevant to the covered segment. In performing this data gathering and\nintegration, an operator must follow the requirements in ASME/ANSI\nB31.8S, section 4. At a minimum, an operator must gather and evaluate the\nset of data specified in Appendix A to ASME/ANSI B31.8S, and consider\nboth on the covered segment and similar non-covered segments, past\nincident history, corrosion control records, continuing surveillance records,\npatrolling records, maintenance history, internal inspection records and all\nother conditions specific to each pipeline.\n(c) Risk assessment. An operator must conduct a risk assessment that\nfollows ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 5, and considers the identified threats\nfor each covered segment. An operator must use the risk assessment to\nprioritize the covered segments for the baseline and continual reassessments\n(§§ 192.919, 192.921, 192.937), and to determine what additional\npreventive and mitigative measures are needed (§ 192.935) for the covered\nsegment.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917 by failing to identify and\nevaluate all potential threats to each covered pipeline segment. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat while Vernon’s IMP discusses threat identification, and Section 4 identifies external\ncorrosion as the primary threat, the IMP has no process to identify and evaluate potential threats.\nAdditionally, the Notice alleged that Section 4 makes no mention of how Vernon gathers and\nintegrates existing data and information on the entire pipeline that could be relevant to the\ncovered segment, and how this data is analyzed to conduct a risk assessment. Finally, the Notice\nalleged that Vernon’s IMP contained no Risk Methodology.\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. § 192.917 by failing to identify and\nevaluate all potential threats to each covered pipeline segment.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2018-0008\nPage 5\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. §§ 192.921(a), 192.947(d), 192.935(d), and 192.917, 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. 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 § 192.921(a) (Item 1), Respondent must develop\nand implement a written process requiring examination and evaluation of ILI\ndefect indications in accordance with ASME B31.8S-2004 (incorporated by\nreference, see § 192.7).\n2. With respect to the violation of § 192.947(d) (Item 2), Respondent must complete\nan IMP review for 2018. Vernon must document, per its MOC process, the reasons\nfor changing integrity assessment methods from ECDA to ILI.\n3. With respect to the violation of § 192.935(d) (Item 3), Respondent must develop\nand implement a written process addressing the requirements of § 192.935(d).\n4. With respect to the violation of § 192.917 (Item 4), Respondent must develop and\nimplement a process in accordance with ASME B31.8S-2004 (incorporated by\nreference, see § 192.7) for identifying and evaluating system threats, collecting\npipeline and system data and a risk ranking methodology.\n5. Vernon must complete the remedial requirements of this Compliance Order within\n180 days after receipt of this Final Order and submit documentation to the Director\nthat the remedial requirements have been completed within 210 days of receipt of\nthis 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\neach day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2018-0008\nPage 6\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 5, 6, and 7, 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. § 192.915 (Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to ensure that\npersons whose responsibilities relate to the integrity management program have\nadequate knowledge and training to carry out an integrity management program;\n49 C.F.R. § 192.911(l) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to perform a\nquality assurance process as outlined by ASME/ANSI B3l.8S, Section 12\n(incorporated by reference, see § 192.7); and\n49 C.F.R. § 192.945(a) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to include in its\nIMP methods to adequately measure program effectiveness.\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":18931}