# RICHMOND, CITY OF — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 120140001
- **title:** RICHMOND, CITY OF — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2014-02-18
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.465(b), 192.747(a).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120140001.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120140001.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120140001
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120140001
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving RICHMOND, CITY OF. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.465(b),  192.747(a). The case was opened on 2014-02-18 and is reported as closed as of 2014-11-06. Proposed civil penalty: $5,600. Assessed civil penalty: $5,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

120140001_Final Order_11062014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120140001/120140001_Final%20Order_11062014.pdf

120140001_Final Order_11062014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120140001/120140001_Final%20Order_11062014_text.pdf

120140001_NOPV PCP_02182014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120140001/120140001_NOPV%20PCP_02182014.pdf

120140001_NOPV PCP_02182014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120140001/120140001_NOPV%20PCP_02182014_text.pdf

120140001_Operator Response to Notice_04022014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120140001/120140001_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_04022014.pdf

120140001_Final Order_11062014_text.pdf

NOVEMBER 6, 2014
Mr. Robert Steidel
Director, Department of Public Utilities
City of Richmond
730 East Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Re: CPF No. 1-2014-0001
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 $5,600. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of
the full penalty amount, by wire transfer, dated April 10, 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, Director, Eastern Region, PHMSA, OPS
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



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, ) CPF No. 1-2014-0001
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On November 13, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, 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 facilities of the City of Richmond
(Richmond, City, or Respondent) in Richmond, Virginia.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated February 18, 2014, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty
(Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had violated
49 C.F.R. § 192.465(b) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $5,600 for the alleged violation.
The warning item required no further action, but warned the operator to correct the probable
violation.
Richmond responded to the Notice by letter dated April 2, 2014 (Response). The company did
not contest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $5,600, as provided
in 49 C.F.R. § 190.227. Payment of the penalty serves to close the case with prejudice to
Respondent.
FINDING OF VIOLATION
In its Response, Richmond did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.
Part 192, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(b), which states:



C P F N o : 1 - 2 0 1 4 - 0 0 0 1
P a g e | 2
§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.
(a) ….
(b) Each cathodic protection rectifier or other impressed current power
source must be inspected six times each calendar year, but with intervals
not exceeding 2 ½ months, to insure that it is operating.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(b) by failing to inspect each
cathodic protection rectifier or other impressed current power source six times each calendar
year, but with intervals not exceeding 2 ½ months, to insure that it is operating. Specifically, the
Notice alleged that in 2011 and 2012, the City failed to inspect 21 rectifiers at intervals not
exceeding 2 ½ months. Respondent did not contest 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(b) by failing to inspect each cathodic protection rectifier or other impressed current
power source six times each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 2 ½ months, to
insure that it is operating.
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.1 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 $5,600 for the violations cited above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.465(b), for failing to inspect each cathodic protection rectifier or other impressed current
power source six times each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 2 ½ months, to
insure that it is operating. Richmond neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence
or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the
record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5,600 for
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(b).
1 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.



C P F N o : 1 - 2 0 1 4 - 0 0 0 1
P a g e | 3
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $5,600, which has already been
paid by Respondent.
WARNING ITEM
With respect to Item 2, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 192 but did not propose a
civil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning
item. The warning was for:
49 C.F.R. § 192.747(a) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to check and
service each valve, the use of which may be necessary for the safe operation of a
distribution system, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each
calendar year.
If 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:** 8092