U.S. 
Department 400 Seventh Street, S.W. 
of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590 
Pipeline and Hazardous 
Materials Safety Administration 

SEP 2 0 2006 

Mr. Thomas C. Simmons, P.E. 
Vice President Power Supply 
Hawaii Electric Company, Inc. 

P.O. 
Box 2750 
170 Ala Moana Boulevard 
Honolulu, HI 96840-000 1 
Re: CPF No. 5-2004-5022 

Dear Mr. Simmons: 

Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the 
above-referenced case. It withdraws one of the allegations of violation, makes findings of 
violation and finds that you have completed the actions specified in the Notice required to 
comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The Final Order also finds that you have addressed 
the inadequacies in your procedures that were cited in the Notice of Amendment. This case is 
now closed. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 

C.F.R. 
Ħħ 190.5. 
Sincerely, 

James Reynolds 
Pipeline Compliance Registry 
Office of Pipeline Safety 

Enclosure 

cc: 
Mr. Chris Hoidal, P.E., Director Western Region, PHMSA 
CERTIFIEDUAIL -RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY 
WASHINGTON, DC 20590 


In the Matter of 1 

) 

Hawaii Electric Company, Inc. CPF NO. 4-2004-5022 

Respondent ) 

FINAL ORDER 

On March 25 and 26,2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 9 601 17, a representative of the Pipeline and 
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA'S)' Office of Pipeline Safety conducted 
an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's Integrity Management Program (IMP) in 
Hilo, Hawaii. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, PHMSA, issued to 
Respondent, by letter dated July 9,2004, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Compliance 
Order, and Notice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. tj 190.207, the Notice 
proposed finding that Respondent committed violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, and proposed that 
Respondent take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also alleged 
inadequacies in Respondent's IMP and proposed to require amendment of Respondent's 
procedures to comply with the requirements of 49 C.F.R. 9 195.452. 

Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated August 13,2004~, as supplemented by letter 
dated April 13,2005 (Response). Respondent contested one of the allegations, offered 
information to explain the allegations, and described the corrective measures it has taken with 
respect to the Notice. Respondent did not request a hearing, and therefore has waived its right to 
one. 

' Effective February 20,2005, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) succeeded 
Research and Special Programs Administration as the agency responsible for regulating safety in pipeline 
transportation and hazardous materials transportation. See, section 108 of the Norman Y. Mineta Research and 
Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-426, 118 Stat. 2423-2429 (November 30,2004)). See also, 70 
Fed. Reg. 8299 (February 18, 2005) redelegating the pipeline safety authorities and functions to the PHMSA 
Administrator. 

It appears that due to mailing and as indicated, Respondent received the Notice was received on July 15,2004. 


FINDINGS OF VIOLATION 

(Uncontested) 

In its Response, Respondent did not contest several of the alleged violations in the Notice. 
Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated the following sections of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as 
more fully described in the Notice: 

Item 2a- 49 C.F.R. 5 195.452(b)(3)-failing to include in its IMP a requirement to 
assess the pre- 1970 low-frequency electric resistance welding pipe seam according to the 
rule requirements; 

Item 2 d 4 9 C.F.R. 5 195.452(b)(3)-failing to include in its IMP any requirements to 
investigate dents; furthermore, the planned assessment did not contain a geometry tool to 
assess dents; 

Item 5 a 4 9 C.F.R. 5 195.452(i)(1 )--failing to have in place a process to evaluate 
whether or not any preventive or mitigative actions could be employed to reduce the risk 
of pipeline failure consequences to the public; and 

Item 5 4 9 C.F.R. 5 195.452(i)(l)--failing to have in place a process to evaluate 
whether or not any emergency flow restricting devices could be added to its pipeline 
system to reduce the consequences of a pipeline failure to the public. 

These findings of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement 
action taken against Respondent. 

WITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION 

The Notice Item l c alleged that Respondent had violated 49 C.F.R. 5 195.452 (f)(l), by failing to 
conduct an overland spread analysis for a potential pipeline failure. In its response, Respondent 
submitted information demonstrating that conducting additional overland spread analysis 
modeling under the circumstances is unnecessary. As the explanations, information, and other 
materials set forth in the Response indicate, Respondent's activities and analysis reach the same 
result that modeling would. The Western Region Director notes that due to the unique operating 
environment that Respondent's pipeline operates within this analysis may have limited value; 
however, the Western Region Director points out that if this pipeline was to be moved inland or 
Respondent was to acquire an inland system, the analysis would be required. Based on the 
information at hand, I am withdrawing this allegation of violation. 

COMPLIANCE ORDER 

The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2(a), 2(d), 5(a), and 5(e) in the 
Notice. Under 49 U.S.C. 5 601 18(a), each person who engages in the transportation of 
hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the 
applicable safety standards established under Chapter 601. With respect to these Items, 


Respondent stated in its Response that it would incorporate the requirements into its IMP and 
that any results or analyses would be forthcoming and provided to PHMSA. The Regional 
Director has reviewed the Response and has determined that the Response addresses the 
proposed compliance actions. Accordingly, since compliance has been achieved with respect to 
these violations, it is not necessary to include the compliance terms in this order. 

AMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES 

The Notice alleged inadequacies in Respondent's procedures/plans and proposed to require 
amendment of Respondent's procedures to comply with the requirements of 
49 C.F.R. $8 195.452(0(1), 195.452(b)(3), 195.452(0(4), 195.452(e)(l), 195.452(i)(l), 
195.4520)(1), and 195.452(f)(7). 


In its response, Respondent submitted copies of its amended procedures, which the Director, 
Western Region, PHMSA reviewed. Accordingly, based on the results of this review, I find that 
Respondent's original procedures as described in the Notice were inadequate to ensure safe 
operation of its pipeline system, but that Respondent has corrected the identified inadequacies. 
No need exists to issue and order directing amendment. 


WARNING ITEMS 

The Notice did not propose a civil penalty or corrective action for Item 3(b) and 4(b). Therefore, 
these are considered to be warning items. Respondent is warned that if it does not take 
appropriate action to correct these items, enforcement will be taken if a subsequent inspection 
reveals a violation. 

Under 49 C.F.R. $ 190.2 15, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of 
this Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this 
Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition 
automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. All other terms of the order, 
including any required corrective action and amendment of procedures, remain in full effect 
unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this 
Final Order are effective on receipt. 

Date Issued 
P ~ c t i n ~ 

Associate Administrator 
for Pipeline Safety