RICHMOND, CITY OF — Notice of Probable Violation

party submissionOfficial PDF120130003_Operator Response_02242014.pdf#

120130003_NOPV PCP PCO_09032013_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFU.S. Department Of Transportation Pipeline and 609.989.2171 Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103 West Trenton, NJ 08628 NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY and PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER Overnight Express Mail September 3, 2013 Robert Steidel, Director City of Richmond, DPU 730 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219 CPF 1-2013-0003 Dear Mr. Steidel: On July 26, 2012, an inspector from the Virginia State Corporation Commission (VA SCC) acting as Agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected the City of Richmond’s (City) pipeline facilities in Richmond, VA. As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed a probable violation of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violation is: 1. § 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring. (a) Each pipeline that is under cathodic protection must be tested at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine whether the cathodic protection meets the requirements of § 192.463. However, if tests at those intervals are impractical for separately protected short sections of mains or transmission lines, not in excess of 100 feet (30 meters), or separately protected service lines, these pipelines may be surveyed on a sampling basis. At least 10 percent of these protected structures, distributed over the entire system must be surveyed each calendar year, with a different 10 percent checked each subsequent year, so that the entire system is tested in each 10-year period. The City failed to monitor separately protected short sections of services pursuant to §192.465(a). The operator did not inspect 5 isolated short sections for adequate cathodic protection as required by §192.465(a). The City failed to monitor their isolated short sections on a 10 percent sampling basis by failing to test the cathodic protection at 5 different addresses over the past two (2) 10 year cycles at 2500, 2501, 2505, and 2508 Glen Center Street and 1600 Barlow Street in Richmond, VA.#

120130003_NOPV PCP PCO_09032013_text.pdf, page 2The VA SCC observed the conditions at the 5 different locations addressed above. VA SCC took photographs, and followed-up with the City by letter, and received a City response dated August 10, 2012. Proposed Civil Penalty Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $10,000 as follows: Item number PENALTY 1 $10,000 Proposed Compliance Order With respect to item 1 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to the City. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice. Response to this Notice Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order. In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 1-2013-0003 and for each document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible, and please whenever possible provide a signed PDF copy in electronic format. Smaller files may be emailed to Byron.Coy@dot.gov. Larger files should be sent on a CD accompanied by the original paper copy to the Eastern Region Office. Sincerely, Byron Coy, PE Director, Eastern Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings 120130003_NOPV_PCP_PCO_09032013 Page 2 of 3#

120130003_NOPV PCP PCO_09032013_text.pdf, page 3PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to City of Richmond, VA (City) a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of the City with the pipeline safety regulations: 1. 2. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to the 5 service address locations, the City must include these locations as applicable on the list of isolated short sections of piping to be monitored per §192.465(a) requirements. We understand from the City response to the VA SCC Notice of investigation letter, that the City planned to replace the isolated steel riser at each address location with an anode less riser. The City shall have 60 days from receipt of the Final Order to complete the actions required related to item 1 above, and submit evidence of completion to Byron Coy, PE, Director, Eastern Region. 3. It is requested (not mandated) that the City maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Byron Coy, PE, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure. 120130003_NOPV_PCP_PCO_09032013 Page 3 of 3#

120130003_Final Order_11262014_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFNOVEMBER 26, 2014 Mr. Robert Steidel Director City of Richmond − DPU 730 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219 Re: CPF No. 1-2013-0003 Dear Mr. Steidel: Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $10,000. It further finds that the City of Richmond has completed the actions specified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of the full penalty amount, by wire transfer, dated October 1, 2014. 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: Mr. Byron Coy, PE, Director, Eastern Region, OPS Mr. Alfred Scott, Interim Deputy Director, City of Richmond − DPU CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED#

120130003_Final Order_11262014_text.pdf, page 2U.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, ) CPF No. 1-2013-0003 ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) FINAL ORDER On July 26, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Virginia State Corporation Commission, 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 facilities and records of City of Richmond (Respondent) in Richmond, Virginia. The City of Richmond system is a municipally owned gas distribution system consisting of approximately 1,865 miles of main lines 91,487 services.1 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated September 3, 2013, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that City of Richmond had violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $10,000 for the alleged violation. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violation. City of Richmond responded to the Notice by letters dated October 2, 2013 and February 24, 2014 (Response). Respondent did not contest the allegations of violation, but offered information concerning the corrective measures it had taken and requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced. After OPS satisfied its request for a copy of the case file, Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one. FINDING OF VIOLATION In its Response, City of Richmond did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows: 1 See Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Sept. 3, 2013) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.#

120130003_Final Order_11262014_text.pdf, page 3CPF No.: 1-2013-0003 Page 2 Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a), which states: § 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring. (a) Each pipeline that is under cathodic protection must be tested at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine whether the cathodic protection meets the requirements of §192.463. However, if tests at those intervals are impractical for separately protected short sections of mains or transmission lines, not in excess of 100 feet (30 meters), or separately protected service lines, these pipelines may be surveyed on a sampling basis. At least 10 percent of these protected structures, distributed over the entire system must be surveyed each calendar year, with a different 10 percent checked each subsequent year, so that the entire system is tested in each 10-year period. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a) by failing to monitor certain separately protected short sections of services in accordance with the regulation. Specifically, the Notice alleged that City of Richmond failed to annually test the cathodic protection on these services during the two-year period prior to the inspection at the following five locations: 2500, 2501, 2505, and 2508 Glen Center Street and 1600 Barlow Street in Richmond, VA. In its Response, City of Richmond stated that it did not admit nor deny the allegation, but offered no information or argument contesting this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a) by failing to conduct annual testing of the cathodic protection on five separately protected short sections of services in accordance with the regulation. This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent. ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.2 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $10,000 for the violation cited above. 2 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat. 1904, January 3, 2012, increased the civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to $200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.#

120130003_Final Order_11262014_text.pdf, page 4CPF No.: 1-2013-0003 Page 3 Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a), for failing to conduct annual testing of the cathodic protection on five separately protected short sections of services in accordance with the regulation. With respect to the nature, circumstances, and gravity of this violation, proper monitoring of cathodic protection is a key part of pipeline safety. With respect to culpability, Respondent provided no explanation for its failure to comply. While Respondent provided information in its Response concerning the corrective actions it has taken, nothing in the record constitutes a good faith effort to comply prior to the OPS inspection. Respondent has presented no evidence or arguments that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed for this Item in the Notice. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $10,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a), which has been paid in full. COMPLIANCE ORDER The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for the violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(a). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director indicates that Respondent provided documentation showing that it has satisfied the proposed compliance order by installing replacement anodeless risers at all five locations specified in the Notice. Accordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order. 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#