{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120110002","title":"RICHMOND, CITY OF — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2011-10-25","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.605(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120110002.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120110002.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120110002","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120110002","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 2011-10-25 and is reported as closed as of 2012-05-23. Proposed civil penalty: $25,000. Assessed civil penalty: $25,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120110002_Final Order_05112012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120110002/120110002_Final%20Order_05112012.pdf\n\n120110002_Final Order_05112012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120110002/120110002_Final%20Order_05112012_text.pdf\n\n120110002_NOPV-PCP_10252011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120110002/120110002_NOPV-PCP_10252011.pdf\n\n120110002_NOPV_PCP_10252011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120110002/120110002_NOPV_PCP_10252011_text.pdf\n\n120110002_Operator Response to Notice_11232011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120110002/120110002_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_11232011.pdf\n\n120110002_Final Order_05112012_text.pdf\n\nMAY 11 2012\nMr. Robert Steidel\nDirector\nDepartment of Public Utilities\nCity of Richmond\n900 East Broad Street\nRichmond, VA 23219\nRe: CPF No. 1-2011-0002\nDear Mr. Steidel:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding\nof violation and assesses a civil penalty of $25,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth\nin the Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment.\nService of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or\nas 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: Mr. Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, OPS\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\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. 1-2011-0002\na municipal corporation, )\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn March 21, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Virginia State\nCorporation Commission (VSCC), as agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety\ninspection of the facilities and records of the City of Richmond, Virginia (City or Respondent).\nThe City operates a municipal gas distribution system with approximately 1,786 miles of natural\ngas pipeline and related facilities in Richmond, Virginia.\n1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated October 25, 2011, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty. In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that the City had violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $25,000 for the alleged\nviolation.\nThe City responded to the Notice by letter dated November 23, 2011 (Response). Respondent\ndid not contest the allegation of violation, but asked that the proposed civil penalty be reduced or\neliminated. The City did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, the City did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated\n49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), which states:\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report, dated October 25, 2011 (Violation Report) at 1.\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\nwritten procedures for installing plastic service tees. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the\njoining pipe with the fusion or mechanical fitting method. The Notice further alleged that the\nmanufacturer’s instructions for the particular type of plastic service tee used in this case called\npipe wrench to tighten it.\nCity’s procedures2 required that City personnel follow the manufacturer’s specifications when\nfor the hand-tightening of the cap but a VSCC inspector had observed a City contractor using a\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its\nwritten procedures for installing a plastic service tee.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $25,000 for the violation cited above.\n2 Violation Report, Exhibit A-5.\n\n\n\n3\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $25,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), for failing to follow its own written procedures for installing plastic\nservice tees. In its Response, the City did not contest the allegation but asked that the proposed\npenalty be reduced or eliminated in light of the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the\nviolation and for such reasons as justice may require.\nFirst, the City argues that the contractor’s use of a wrench to tighten the service tee in this\nparticular situation was actually in accordance with the operator’s specifications. The City\nprovided documentation that it had contacted the manufacturer of the plastic service tee after the\nVSCC inspection occurred, and that the manufacturer responded as follows:\nUnder certain circumstances (for example: if the installer is in a tight position or\ndoes not have the leverage to complete the cap installation by hand), the installer\nmay use a wrench to complete the cap installation. The installer may do so as\nlong as the cap is initially started by hand and as long as the cap is not tightened\nbeyond the cap stop.3\nCiting to the above statement, the City contends that the contractor’s actions were consistent\nwith the manufacturer’s specifications, and that the installation would be fully compliant with its\nwritten procedures if completed today. Respondent argues that this case is really a matter of\ntiming (i.e., the violation only occurred because the manufacturer was not contacted until after\nthe contractor finished the installation). According to the City, “[T]his clearly demonstrates that\nthe contractor’s actions were appropriate, even if the timing of contact with the manufacturer\nshould have been prior to and not after using the wrench to tighten the cap to the stop.”4\nI disagree. Whether the City’s contractor used the proper or “appropriate” method for installing\nthe tee is not the issue. Instead, the City was cited for failing to follow its own procedures, which\nrequired City or contractor personnel to follow the manufacturer’s specifications in installing the\nservice tee. The contractor in this particular situation chose to proceed with an alternative\nmethod of installing the tee that may or may not have been appropriate or safe. In fact, it seems\nlikely that if the VSCC inspector had not personally observed the violation and brought it to the\nCity’s attention, the contractor would have simply continued to ignore the manufacturer’s\nspecifications and installed other service tees in a manner that could have jeopardized safety.\nSecond, the City argues that the violation was not “particularly grave” because the actions of the\ncontractor were “not egregious or dangerous” in that they were subsequently ratified by the\nmanufacturer’s letter.\ncircumstances, and gravity of the offense and shows that justice would be served by reducing the\npenalty.\n5 This belated information, according to Respondent, mitigates the nature,\nHowever, the Violation Report demonstrates that OPS considered all of these issues and other\n3 Response (Attachment).\n4 Response at 2.\n5 Ibid.\n\n\n\n4\nrelevant assessment criteria in arriving at the proposed penalty amount. It describes the nature of\nthe violation as a failure by the contractor to follow the City’s written procedures, and lists the\ncircumstances as involving a one-day offense discovered by PHMSA’s agent. On the issue of\ngravity, it notes that the violation potentially compromised pipeline integrity or safe operation in\na populated area, where a release of natural gas could adversely affect public safety.\nOn the issue of culpability, the Violation Report reflects a lessened degree of culpability on the\npart of the City insofar as it was aware of the applicable regulatory requirements and took some\nsteps to achieve compliance (i.e., Respondent included the manufacturer’s installation\ninstructions in its procedures), but the contractor failed to follow those procedures. It notes, on\nthe other hand, that OPS’ policy on culpability precludes mitigation of a penalty based upon\n“good faith” actions taken by an operator after a violation has already been discovered. Finally,\nthe report takes into account that the City had no history of prior offenses within the past five\nyears, which would have served to increase the penalty.\nTherefore, I find that the Violation Report and Notice properly considered all the relevant facts\nand assessment criteria used to calculate penalties and that the City has failed to provide any\nadditional information that would warrant a further reduction of the penalty. Accordingly, I\nassess Respondent a civil penalty of $25,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a).\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $25,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has the right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order, including\nany required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final\nOrder becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is\nwaived.\n\n\n\n5\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":13644}