# CITY OF VERNON — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

520180008_Closure Letter_11152019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180008/520180008_Closure%20Letter_11152019.pdf

520180008_Closure Letter_11152019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180008/520180008_Closure%20Letter_11152019_text.pdf

520180008_Final Order_06192019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180008/520180008_Final%20Order_06192019.pdf

520180008_Final Order_06192019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180008/520180008_Final%20Order_06192019_text.pdf

520180008_NOPV PCO_08022018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180008/520180008_NOPV%20PCO_08022018.pdf

520180008_NOPV PCO_08022018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180008/520180008_NOPV%20PCO_08022018_text.pdf

520180008_Operator Response to Notice_09042018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520180008/520180008_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_09042018.pdf

520180008_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

520180008_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. 5-2018-0008
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. 5-2018-0008
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. § 192.921(a), which states:
1 See http://www.cityofvernon.org/departments/public-utilities (Current as of March 11, 2019).



CPF No. 5-2018-0008
Page 2
§ 192.921 How is the baseline assessment to be conducted?
(a) Assessment methods. An operator must assess the integrity of the
line pipe in each covered segment by applying one or more of the following
methods depending on the threats to which the covered segment is
susceptible. An operator must select the method or methods best suited to
address the threats identified to the covered segment (See § 192.917).
(1) Internal inspection tool or tools capable of detecting corrosion, and
any other threats to which the covered segment is susceptible. An operator
must follow ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7),
section 6.2 in selecting the appropriate internal inspection tools for the
covered segment.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.921(a) by failing to assess the
integrity of the line pipe in each covered segment. Specifically, Vernon conducted an in-line
inspection (ILI) in 2013 as its baseline assessment. Direct examination of ILI defect indications
is required by ASME B31.8S-2004, Section 6.2.6 Examination and Evaluation, which is
incorporated by reference into Part 192. During the inspection, statements made by Vernon staff
and a consultant confirmed that Vernon did not conduct direct examination and evaluation of
identified defect indications called out by the ILI tool, therefore failing to assess the integrity of
the covered segments.
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. § 192.921(a) by failing to assess the
integrity of the line pipe in each covered segment.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.947(d), which states:
§ 192.947 What records must an operator keep?
An operator must maintain, for the useful life of the pipeline, records
that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this subpart. At
minimum, an operator must maintain the following records for review
during an inspection.
(a) ...
(d) Documents to support any decision, analysis and process developed
and used to implement and evaluate each element of the baseline assessment
plan and integrity management program. Documents include those
developed and used in support of any identification, calculation,
amendment, modification, justification, deviation and determination made,
and any action taken to implement and evaluate any of the program
elements;
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.947(d) by failing to maintain
records that demonstrate compliance with the transmission pipeline integrity management
requirements of Subpart O. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent did not maintain
documents of the annual review of the Vernon Transmission Integrity Management Program
(IMP). Additionally, the Notice alleged Vernon failed to document a Management of Change



CPF No. 5-2018-0008
Page 3
(MOC) process when changing integrity assessment methods from external corrosion direct
assessment (ECDA) to ILI.
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. § 192.947(d) by failing to maintain
records that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Subpart O.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.935(d), which states:
§ 192.935 What additional preventive and mitigative measures must an
operator take?
(a) General requirements. An operator must take additional measures
beyond those already required by Part 192 to prevent a pipeline failure and
to mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure in a high consequence
area...
(d) Pipelines operating below 30% SMYS. An operator of a
transmission pipeline operating below 30% SMYS located in a high
consequence area must follow the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and
(d)(2) of this section ...
(1) Apply the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(iii) of this
section to the pipeline; and
(2) Either monitor excavations near the pipeline, or conduct patrols as
required by § 192.705 of the pipeline at bi-monthly intervals. If an operator
finds any indication of unreported construction activity, the operator must
conduct a follow up investigation to determine if mechanical damage has
occurred.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.935(d) by failing to apply the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) of this section and to either monitor excavations or conduct
patrols to prevent a pipeline failure and to mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure in high
consequence areas (HCAs). Specifically, the Notice alleged that Vernon, an operator of a
transmission line operating below 30% SMYS located in an HCA, failed to address any of the
requirements of § 192.935(d) and failed to include in its IMP a process to address the
requirements of § 192.935(d).
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. § 192.935(d) by failing to apply the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) of this section and to either monitor excavations or conduct
patrols to prevent a pipeline failure and to mitigate the consequences of a failure in an HCA.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917, which states:
§ 192.917 How does an operator identify potential threats to pipeline
integrity and use the threat identification in its integrity program?
(a) Threat identification. An operator must identify and evaluate all
potential threats to each covered pipeline segment. Potential threats that an



CPF No. 5-2018-0008
Page 4
operator must consider include, but are not limited to, the threats listed in
ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7), section 2,
which are grouped under the following four categories:
(1) Time dependent threats such as internal corrosion, external
corrosion, and stress corrosion cracking;
(2) Static or resident threats, such as fabrication or construction defects;
(3) Time independent threats such as third party damage and outside
force damage; and
(4) Human error.
(b) Data gathering and integration. To identify and evaluate the
potential threats to a covered pipeline segment, an operator must gather and
integrate existing data and information on the entire pipeline that could be
relevant to the covered segment. In performing this data gathering and
integration, an operator must follow the requirements in ASME/ANSI
B31.8S, section 4. At a minimum, an operator must gather and evaluate the
set of data specified in Appendix A to ASME/ANSI B31.8S, and consider
both on the covered segment and similar non-covered segments, past
incident history, corrosion control records, continuing surveillance records,
patrolling records, maintenance history, internal inspection records and all
other conditions specific to each pipeline.
(c) Risk assessment. An operator must conduct a risk assessment that
follows ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 5, and considers the identified threats
for each covered segment. An operator must use the risk assessment to
prioritize the covered segments for the baseline and continual reassessments
(§§ 192.919, 192.921, 192.937), and to determine what additional
preventive and mitigative measures are needed (§ 192.935) for the covered
segment.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.917 by failing to identify and
evaluate all potential threats to each covered pipeline segment. Specifically, the Notice alleged
that while Vernon’s IMP discusses threat identification, and Section 4 identifies external
corrosion as the primary threat, the IMP has no process to identify and evaluate potential threats.
Additionally, the Notice alleged that Section 4 makes no mention of how Vernon gathers and
integrates existing data and information on the entire pipeline that could be relevant to the
covered segment, and how this data is analyzed to conduct a risk assessment. Finally, the Notice
alleged that Vernon’s IMP contained no Risk Methodology.
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. § 192.917 by failing to identify and
evaluate all potential threats to each covered pipeline segment.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.



CPF No. 5-2018-0008
Page 5
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.921(a), 192.947(d), 192.935(d), and 192.917, respectively. Under
49 U.S.C. § 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 § 192.921(a) (Item 1), Respondent must develop
and implement a written process requiring examination and evaluation of ILI
defect indications in accordance with ASME B31.8S-2004 (incorporated by
reference, see § 192.7).
2. With respect to the violation of § 192.947(d) (Item 2), Respondent must complete
an IMP review for 2018. Vernon must document, per its MOC process, the reasons
for changing integrity assessment methods from ECDA to ILI.
3. With respect to the violation of § 192.935(d) (Item 3), Respondent must develop
and implement a written process addressing the requirements of § 192.935(d).
4. With respect to the violation of § 192.917 (Item 4), Respondent must develop and
implement a process in accordance with ASME B31.8S-2004 (incorporated by
reference, see § 192.7) for identifying and evaluating system threats, collecting
pipeline and system data and a risk ranking methodology.
5. 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
each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a
district court of the United States.



CPF No. 5-2018-0008
Page 6
WARNING ITEMS
With respect to Items 5, 6, and 7, 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. § 192.915 (Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to ensure that
persons whose responsibilities relate to the integrity management program have
adequate knowledge and training to carry out an integrity management program;
49 C.F.R. § 192.911(l) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to perform a
quality assurance process as outlined by ASME/ANSI B3l.8S, Section 12
(incorporated by reference, see § 192.7); and
49 C.F.R. § 192.945(a) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to include in its
IMP methods to adequately measure program effectiveness.
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:** 18931