# RICHMOND, CITY OF — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

120100004_FinalOrder_01242011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120100004/120100004_FinalOrder_01242011.pdf

120100004_FinalOrder_01242011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120100004/120100004_FinalOrder_01242011_text.pdf

120100004_NOPV PCP_10142010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120100004/120100004_NOPV%20PCP_10142010.pdf

120100004_NOPV PCP_10142010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120100004/120100004_NOPV%20PCP_10142010_text.pdf

120100004_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

120100004_FinalOrder_01242011_text.pdf

JAN 24 2011
Mr. Robert Steidel
Interim Director
City of Richmond
Department of Public Utilities
400 Jefferson Davis Highway
Richmond, VA 23224
Re: CPF No. 1-2010-0004
Dear Mr. Steidel:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the
allegation of violation and the proposed civil penalty of $56,200. This enforcement action is
now closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of
mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Byron Coy, P.E., Director, Eastern Region, PHMSA
Jim Hotinger, Virginia State Corporation Commission
Michael Bellman, Deputy Director, Gas & Light, City of Richmond
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0040 0054]



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 Richmond, Virginia, ) CPF No. 1-2010-0004
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
Between February 16-18, 2010, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Virginia
State Corporation Commission (VA SCC), as agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline
safety inspection of the municipal gas system and records of the City of Richmond (City or
Respondent). The City’s system includes 1,786 miles of natural gas pipelines.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated October 14, 2010, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty
(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that the City had
violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $56,200 for the alleged
violation. The Notice also proposed finding that Respondent had committed another probable
violation of 49 C.F.R. Part 192.605(a) and warned Respondent to take appropriate corrective
action or be subject to future enforcement action.
The City responded to the Notice by letter dated November 12, 2010 (Response). Respondent
contested the allegations and requested that the proposed civil penalty be eliminated.
Respondent did not request an immediate hearing but reserved its right to one if PHMSA
disagreed with its Response.
WITHDRAWAL OF ITEM
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192.605(a), as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), which states in
relevant part:



2
§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and
emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline,
a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance
activities and for emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual
must also include procedures for handling abnormal operations. This
manual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not
exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. This manual
must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence.
Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where
operations and maintenance activities are conducted….
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its own
operations and maintenance procedures by not repairing Grade 1 leaks immediately. The City’s
Procedures Manual, Volume II, Section 6, stated that “[the City] shall repair Grade 1 leaks
immediately” and “re-evaluate Grade 2 leaks at intervals of 12 months until cleared.
the inspection, the VA SCC inspector identified four Grade 1 leaks that company records
indicated had not been repaired immediately.
”1 During
In its Response, the City provided supplemental information supporting its contention that these
leaks were addressed appropriately and that it did not violate § 192.605(a). Specifically, the City
stated that leak #s 67843 and 562586 were Grade 2 leaks and therefore the appropriate repair
interval was twelve months. The City provided evidence that leak # 67843 was repaired within
nine days and leak # 562586 was repaired within two days. In regards to the other two leaks, the
City provided information that the leak report for #238910 had the wrong year specified as the
repair date and it was in fact a continuous repair that began the day the leak was reported and
ended the next day on September 27, 2008. Finally, the City demonstrated that it shut off the gas
and made a temporary repair on leak # 566945 to stop the leak on the riser the same day the leak
was reported, in compliance with City procedures. It also replaced the service the next day on
2
January 13, 2010.
Upon review of this supplemental information, OPS agrees that the City did indeed follow its
operations and maintenance procedures for repairing Grade 1 leaks. According to the City, the
leak reports retrieved at the time of the inspection were not the final documents about the leak.
Consequently, information on the leak reports contained some inaccuracies. The City maintains
a separate electronic database that contains an accurate record of each leak.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent did not violate 49
C.F.R. § 192.605(a) and withdraw this item. Since Item 1 is withdrawn, the associated proposed
civil penalty is also withdrawn.
1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report, Exhibit A, Appendix 4: City of Richmond, Procedures Manual, Volume II,
Section 6 (August 14, 2009).
2 See Response, Attachments A-E.



3
WARNING ITEM
With respect to Item 2, the Notice alleged a probable violation of § 192.605(a) but did not
propose a civil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a
warning item. The warning is for:
49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its
operations and maintenance procedures by not re-evaluating Grade 2 leaks at
intervals not exceeding 12 months.
The VA SCC inspector identified twenty-six Grade 2 leaks that were not reevaluated or cleared
at intervals not exceeding 12 months. The leaks were allegedly repaired or reevaluated between
11 and 286 days past the required interval of 12 months. The City of Richmond did not contest
or provide additional information in response to Item 2. Accordingly, having considered such
information, I find, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, that a probable violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.605 (Notice Item 2) has occurred and Respondent is hereby advised to correct such
condition. In the event that OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection,
Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
___________________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 8349