{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120100004","title":"RICHMOND, CITY OF — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2010-10-14","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.605(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120100004.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120100004.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120100004","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120100004","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving RICHMOND, CITY OF. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.605(a). The case was opened on 2010-10-14 and is reported as closed as of 2011-01-24. Proposed civil penalty: $56,200. Assessed civil penalty: $0. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120100004_FinalOrder_01242011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120100004/120100004_FinalOrder_01242011.pdf\n\n120100004_FinalOrder_01242011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120100004/120100004_FinalOrder_01242011_text.pdf\n\n120100004_NOPV PCP_10142010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120100004/120100004_NOPV%20PCP_10142010.pdf\n\n120100004_NOPV PCP_10142010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120100004/120100004_NOPV%20PCP_10142010_text.pdf\n\n120100004_Operator Response and Request for Hearing_11122010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120100004/120100004_Operator%20Response%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing_11122010.pdf\n\n120100004_FinalOrder_01242011_text.pdf\n\nJAN 24 2011\nMr. Robert Steidel\nInterim Director\nCity of Richmond\nDepartment of Public Utilities\n400 Jefferson Davis Highway\nRichmond, VA 23224\nRe: CPF No. 1-2010-0004\nDear Mr. Steidel:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the\nallegation of violation and the proposed civil penalty of $56,200. This enforcement action is\nnow closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of\nmailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Byron Coy, P.E., Director, Eastern Region, PHMSA\nJim Hotinger, Virginia State Corporation Commission\nMichael Bellman, Deputy Director, Gas & Light, City of Richmond\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0040 0054]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nCity of Richmond, Virginia, ) CPF No. 1-2010-0004\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween February 16-18, 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Virginia\nState Corporation Commission (VA SCC), as agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline\nsafety inspection of the municipal gas system and records of the City of Richmond (City or\nRespondent). The City’s system includes 1,786 miles of natural gas pipelines.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated October 14, 2010, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty\n(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that the City had\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $56,200 for the alleged\nviolation. The Notice also proposed finding that Respondent had committed another probable\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. Part 192.605(a) and warned Respondent to take appropriate corrective\naction or be subject to future enforcement action.\nThe City responded to the Notice by letter dated November 12, 2010 (Response). Respondent\ncontested the allegations and requested that the proposed civil penalty be eliminated.\nRespondent did not request an immediate hearing but reserved its right to one if PHMSA\ndisagreed with its Response.\nWITHDRAWAL OF ITEM\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192.605(a), as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), which states in\nrelevant part:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline,\na manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance\nactivities and for emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual\nmust also include procedures for handling abnormal operations. This\nmanual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. This manual\nmust be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence.\nAppropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted….\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its own\noperations and maintenance procedures by not repairing Grade 1 leaks immediately. The City’s\nProcedures Manual, Volume II, Section 6, stated that “[the City] shall repair Grade 1 leaks\nimmediately” and “re-evaluate Grade 2 leaks at intervals of 12 months until cleared.\nthe inspection, the VA SCC inspector identified four Grade 1 leaks that company records\nindicated had not been repaired immediately.\n”1 During\nIn its Response, the City provided supplemental information supporting its contention that these\nleaks were addressed appropriately and that it did not violate § 192.605(a). Specifically, the City\nstated that leak #s 67843 and 562586 were Grade 2 leaks and therefore the appropriate repair\ninterval was twelve months. The City provided evidence that leak # 67843 was repaired within\nnine days and leak # 562586 was repaired within two days. In regards to the other two leaks, the\nCity provided information that the leak report for #238910 had the wrong year specified as the\nrepair date and it was in fact a continuous repair that began the day the leak was reported and\nended the next day on September 27, 2008. Finally, the City demonstrated that it shut off the gas\nand made a temporary repair on leak # 566945 to stop the leak on the riser the same day the leak\nwas reported, in compliance with City procedures. It also replaced the service the next day on\n2\nJanuary 13, 2010.\nUpon review of this supplemental information, OPS agrees that the City did indeed follow its\noperations and maintenance procedures for repairing Grade 1 leaks. According to the City, the\nleak reports retrieved at the time of the inspection were not the final documents about the leak.\nConsequently, information on the leak reports contained some inaccuracies. The City maintains\na separate electronic database that contains an accurate record of each leak.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent did not violate 49\nC.F.R. § 192.605(a) and withdraw this item. Since Item 1 is withdrawn, the associated proposed\ncivil penalty is also withdrawn.\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report, Exhibit A, Appendix 4: City of Richmond, Procedures Manual, Volume II,\nSection 6 (August 14, 2009).\n2 See Response, Attachments A-E.\n\n\n\n3\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 2, the Notice alleged a probable violation of § 192.605(a) but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a\nwarning item. The warning is for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its\noperations and maintenance procedures by not re-evaluating Grade 2 leaks at\nintervals not exceeding 12 months.\nThe VA SCC inspector identified twenty-six Grade 2 leaks that were not reevaluated or cleared\nat intervals not exceeding 12 months. The leaks were allegedly repaired or reevaluated between\n11 and 286 days past the required interval of 12 months. The City of Richmond did not contest\nor provide additional information in response to Item 2. Accordingly, having considered such\ninformation, I find, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, that a probable violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.605 (Notice Item 2) has occurred and Respondent is hereby advised to correct such\ncondition. In the event that OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection,\nRespondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":8349}