{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520200006W","title":"ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2020-03-16","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.201(a)(2)(i), 192.625(a), 192.625(f).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520200006w.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520200006w.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520200006w","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520200006W","body":"Warning Letter involving ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.201(a)(2)(i),  192.625(a),  192.625(f). The case was opened on 2020-03-16 and is reported as closed as of 2020-03-16. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520200006W_Warning Letter_03162020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520200006W/520200006W_Warning%20Letter_03162020.pdf\n\n520200006W_Warning Letter_03162020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520200006W/520200006W_Warning%20Letter_03162020_text.pdf\n\n520200006W_Warning Letter_03162020_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMarch 16, 2020\nMr. James Herberg\nGeneral Manager\nOrange County Sanitation District\n10844 Ellis Avenue\nFountain Valley, CA 92708\nCPF 5-2020-0006W\nDear Mr. Herberg:\nOn August 19 through 22, 2019, a representative of the California Public Utilities\nCommission (CPUC), on behalf of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected the\nOrange County Sanitation District (OCSD) gas transmission system procedures and records.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items\ninspected and the probable violations are:\n1. §192.201 Required capacity of pressure relieving and limiting stations.\n(a) Each pressure relief station or pressure limiting station or group of those\nstations installed to protect a pipeline must have enough capacity, and must be\nset to operate, to insure the following:\n(1) …\n(2) In pipelines other than a low pressure distribution system:\n\n\n\n(i) If the maximum allowable operating pressure is 60 p.s.i. (414 kPa) gage or\nmore, the pressure may not exceed the maximum allowable operating pressure\nplus 10 percent, or the pressure that produces a hoop stress of 75 percent of\nSMYS, whichever is lower; …\nOCSD failed to set the pressure relief valve on the discharge of the compressor to a value of\nnot more than the maximum allowable operating pressure plus 10 percent. During the\ninspection, it was discovered that the MAOP of the OCSD pipeline is 80 psig. The OCSD\npressure relief valve set point, however, was recorded at 96 psig. The correct maximum set\npoint for this relief valve (based on the MAOP of 80 psig) is 88 psig, which is lower than the\npressure that produces a hoop stress of 75 percent of SMYS.\n2. §192.625 Odorization of gas.\n(a) A combustible gas in a distribution line must contain a natural odorant or be\nodorized so that at a concentration in air of one-fifth of the lower explosive limit, the\ngas is readily detectable by a person with a normal sense of smell.\n…\n(f) To assure the proper concentration of odorant in accordance with this section,\neach operator must conduct periodic sampling of combustible gases using an\ninstrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air at which the odor\nbecomes readily detectable…\nOCSD failed to conduct periodic sampling of combustible gases using an instrument capable\nof determining the percentage of gas in air at which the odor becomes readily detectable.\nDuring the inspection, OCSD did not produce records or other documentation to demonstrate\nthat it conducted periodic sampling pursuant to § 192.625(f).1\nUnder 49 U.S.C. §60122 and 49 CFR §190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to\nexceed $218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465\nfor a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and\nbefore July 31, 2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day,\nwith a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,132,679. For violation occurring on or after\nNovember 2, 2015 and before November 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed\n$209,002 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For\nviolations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, the maximum penalty may not exceed\n$200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a\nrelated series of violations. We have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents\ninvolved in this case, and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or\npenalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to correct the items identified in\n1 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b) requires operators to keep records necessary to administer the procedures established\nunder § 192.605, which includes operating, maintaining and repairing the pipeline in accordance with each\nrequirement of subpart L.\n2\n\n\n\nthis letter. Failure to do so will result in OCSD being subject to additional enforcement\naction.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer\nto CPF 5-2020-0006W. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this\nenforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any\nportion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b),\nalong with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document\nwith the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of\nwhy you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C.\n552(b).\nSincerely,\nDustin Hubbard\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 J. Dunphy (#167795)\nTerrence Eng, Program Manager, Gas Safety and Reliability Branch\nCalifornia Public Utilities Commission\nJames Spears, Operations Manager, Orange County Sanitation District\n10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708\n3","truncated":false,"body_characters":5901}