{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120130003","title":"RICHMOND, CITY OF — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-09-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.465(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120130003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120130003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120130003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120130003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving RICHMOND, CITY OF. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.465(a). The case was opened on 2013-09-03 and is reported as closed as of 2014-11-26. Proposed civil penalty: $10,000. Assessed civil penalty: $10,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120130003_Final Order_11262014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120130003/120130003_Final%20Order_11262014.pdf\n\n120130003_Final Order_11262014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120130003/120130003_Final%20Order_11262014_text.pdf\n\n120130003_NOPV PCP PCO_09032013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120130003/120130003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09032013.pdf\n\n120130003_NOPV PCP PCO_09032013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120130003/120130003_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09032013_text.pdf\n\n120130003_Operator Response_02242014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120130003/120130003_Operator%20Response_02242014.pdf\n\n120130003_NOPV PCP PCO_09032013_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department Of Transportation Pipeline and 609.989.2171\nHazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103\nWest Trenton, NJ 08628\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nOvernight Express Mail\nSeptember 3, 2013\nRobert Steidel, Director\nCity of Richmond, DPU\n730 East Broad Street\nRichmond, VA 23219\nCPF 1-2013-0003\nDear Mr. Steidel:\nOn July 26, 2012, an inspector from the Virginia State Corporation Commission (VA SCC) acting as\nAgent for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601\nof 49 United States Code inspected the City of Richmond’s (City) pipeline facilities in Richmond, VA.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed a probable violation of the Pipeline\nSafety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable\nviolation is:\n1. § 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each pipeline that is under cathodic protection must be tested at least once each calendar year,\nbut with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine whether the cathodic protection meets the\nrequirements of § 192.463. However, if tests at those intervals are impractical for separately\nprotected short sections of mains or transmission lines, not in excess of 100 feet (30 meters), or\nseparately protected service lines, these pipelines may be surveyed on a sampling basis. At least 10\npercent of these protected structures, distributed over the entire system must be surveyed each\ncalendar year, with a different 10 percent checked each subsequent year, so that the entire system is\ntested in each 10-year period.\nThe City failed to monitor separately protected short sections of services pursuant to §192.465(a). The\noperator did not inspect 5 isolated short sections for adequate cathodic protection as required by\n§192.465(a).\nThe City failed to monitor their isolated short sections on a 10 percent sampling basis by failing to test the\ncathodic protection at 5 different addresses over the past two (2) 10 year cycles at 2500, 2501, 2505, and\n2508 Glen Center Street and 1600 Barlow Street in Richmond, VA.\n\n\n\nThe VA SCC observed the conditions at the 5 different locations addressed above. VA SCC took\nphotographs, and followed-up with the City by letter, and received a City response dated August 10,\n2012.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per\nviolation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of violations.\nFor violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per\nviolation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations.\nThe Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the\nabove probable violation and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of\n$10,000 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $10,000\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item 1 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to the City. Please refer to the Proposed\nCompliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nCompliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All material you\nsubmit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you believe that any\nportion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with\nthe complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you\nbelieve qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted\ninformation qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30\ndays of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this\nNotice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 1-2013-0003 and for each document you\nsubmit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible, and please whenever possible\nprovide a signed PDF copy in electronic format. Smaller files may be emailed to Byron.Coy@dot.gov.\nLarger files should be sent on a CD accompanied by the original paper copy to the Eastern Region\nOffice.\nSincerely,\nByron Coy, PE\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n120130003_NOPV_PCP_PCO_09032013 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to City of Richmond, VA (City) a Compliance\nOrder incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of the City\nwith the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to the 5 service address\nlocations, the City must include these locations as applicable on the list of isolated\nshort sections of piping to be monitored per §192.465(a) requirements. We\nunderstand from the City response to the VA SCC Notice of investigation letter,\nthat the City planned to replace the isolated steel riser at each address location\nwith an anode less riser.\nThe City shall have 60 days from receipt of the Final Order to complete the\nactions required related to item 1 above, and submit evidence of completion to\nByron Coy, PE, Director, Eastern Region.\n3. It is requested (not mandated) that the City maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit\nthe total to Byron Coy, PE, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in\ntwo categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans,\nprocedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements,\nadditions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n120130003_NOPV_PCP_PCO_09032013 Page 3 of 3\n\n120130003_Final Order_11262014_text.pdf\n\nNOVEMBER 26, 2014\nMr. Robert Steidel\nDirector\nCity of Richmond − DPU\n730 East Broad Street\nRichmond, VA 23219\nRe: CPF No. 1-2013-0003\nDear Mr. Steidel:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $10,000. It further finds that the City of Richmond has\ncompleted the actions specified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations.\nThis is to acknowledge receipt of payment of the full penalty amount, by wire transfer, dated\nOctober 1, 2014. This enforcement action is now closed. Service of the Final Order by certified\nmail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Byron Coy, PE, Director, Eastern Region, OPS\nMr. Alfred Scott, Interim Deputy Director, City of Richmond − DPU\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, ) CPF No. 1-2013-0003\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn July 26, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Virginia State\nCorporation Commission, 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 City of Richmond (Respondent) in Richmond, Virginia.\nThe City of Richmond system is a municipally owned gas distribution system consisting of\napproximately 1,865 miles of main lines 91,487 services.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated September 3, 2013, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that City of Richmond had violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a) and proposed\nassessing a civil penalty of $10,000 for the alleged violation. The Notice also proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violation.\nCity of Richmond responded to the Notice by letters dated October 2, 2013 and February 24,\n2014 (Response). Respondent did not contest the allegations of violation, but offered\ninformation concerning the corrective measures it had taken and requested that the proposed civil\npenalty be reduced. After OPS satisfied its request for a copy of the case file, Respondent did\nnot request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, City of Richmond did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated\n49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\n1 See Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Sept. 3, 2013) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n\n\n\nCPF No.: 1-2013-0003\nPage 2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a), which states:\n§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each pipeline that is under cathodic protection must be tested at\nleast once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months,\nto determine whether the cathodic protection meets the requirements of\n§192.463. However, if tests at those intervals are impractical for\nseparately protected short sections of mains or transmission lines, not in\nexcess of 100 feet (30 meters), or separately protected service lines, these\npipelines may be surveyed on a sampling basis. At least 10 percent of\nthese protected structures, distributed over the entire system must be\nsurveyed each calendar year, with a different 10 percent checked each\nsubsequent year, so that the entire system is tested in each 10-year period.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a) by failing to monitor certain\nseparately protected short sections of services in accordance with the regulation. Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that City of Richmond failed to annually test the cathodic protection on these\nservices during the two-year period prior to the inspection at the following five locations: 2500,\n2501, 2505, and 2508 Glen Center Street and 1600 Barlow Street in Richmond, VA. In its\nResponse, City of Richmond stated that it did not admit nor deny the allegation, but offered no\ninformation or argument contesting this allegation of violation.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a) by failing to conduct annual testing of the cathodic protection on five\nseparately protected short sections of services in accordance with the regulation.\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$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.2 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 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; and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $10,000 for the violation cited above.\n2 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat.\n1904, January 3, 2012, increased the civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to $200,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.\n\n\n\nCPF No.: 1-2013-0003\nPage 3\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.465(a), for failing to conduct annual testing of the cathodic protection on five separately\nprotected short sections of services in accordance with the regulation. With respect to the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of this violation, proper monitoring of cathodic protection is a key\npart of pipeline safety. With respect to culpability, Respondent provided no explanation for its\nfailure to comply. While Respondent provided information in its Response concerning the\ncorrective actions it has taken, nothing in the record constitutes a good faith effort to comply\nprior to the OPS inspection.\nRespondent has presented no evidence or arguments that would warrant a reduction in the civil\npenalty amount proposed for this Item in the Notice. Accordingly, having reviewed the record\nand considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $10,000 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a), which has been paid in full.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for the violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601.\nThe Director indicates that Respondent provided documentation showing that it has satisfied the\nproposed compliance order by installing replacement anodeless risers at all five locations\nspecified in the Notice. Accordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to\nthis violation. Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this\nOrder.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":16154}