{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120170004","title":"RICHMOND, CITY OF — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2017-10-10","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.605(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120170004.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120170004.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120170004","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120170004","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 2017-10-10 and is reported as closed as of 2018-10-16. Proposed civil penalty: $41,400. Assessed civil penalty: $41,400. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120170004_Final Order_09242018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120170004/120170004_Final%20Order_09242018.pdf\n\n120170004_Final Order_09242018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120170004/120170004_Final%20Order_09242018_text.pdf\n\n120170004_NOPV PCP_10102017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120170004/120170004_NOPV%20PCP_10102017.pdf\n\n120170004_NOPV PCP_10102017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120170004/120170004_NOPV%20PCP_10102017_text.pdf\n\n120170004_Operator Response To Notice_11082017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120170004/120170004_Operator%20Response%20To%20Notice_11082017.pdf\n\n120170004_Final Order_09242018_text.pdf\n\nSeptember 24, 2018\nHon. Levar M. Stoney, Mayor\nCity of Richmond\n730 East Broad Street\nRichmond, VA 23219\nRe: CPF No. 1-2017-0004\nDear Mayor Stoney:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $41,400. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the\nFinal Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of\nthe Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing, as provided under\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMs. Rosemary Green, Interim Director, City of Richmond Department of Public Utilities,\n900 East Broad Street, Room 115, Richmond, VA 23219\nMr. Alfred Scott, Deputy Director II, Gas Maintenance and Streetlighting, DPU, 900 E.\nBroad St., Room 115, Richmond, VA 23219\nMr. Sang Yi, Engineer III, Gas and Lights, Richmond Gas Works (formerly City of\nRichmond Department of Public Utilities (DPU) Energy Services Division), 730 E\nBroad Street, Richmond, VA 23219\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____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nCity of Richmond, Virginia, ) CPF No. 1-2017-0004\na municipal corporation, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn February 24, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Virginia State\nCorporation Commission (VA SCC), 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) at\nWhitemont Drive in Henrico County, Virginia. The City of Richmond is a municipally-owned\ngas distribution system consisting of about 1,923 miles of main and 97,563 services.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated October 10, 2017, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty\n(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that the City had\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $41,400 for the alleged\nviolation.\nThe City responded to the Notice by letter dated November 3, 2017 (Response). Respondent did\nnot contest the allegation of violation but provided an explanation of its actions and requested\nthat the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore\nhas waived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Respondent did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 192.605(a), as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), which states:\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2017-0004\nPage 2\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 operations\nand maintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its own\nmanual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for\nemergency response. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the City failed to follow its own\ncoating procedures during a repair on February 24, 2017, at Whitemont Drive in Henrico\nCounty, Virginia.\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\nown manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for\nemergency response.\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.1 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 $41,400 for the violation cited above.\n1 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum\nCivil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2017-0004\nPage 3\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $41,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.605(a), for failing to follow its own manual of written procedures for conducting\noperations and maintenance activities and for emergency response. As noted above, I found that\nthe City had failed to follow its coating procedures during a repair on February 24, 2017, at\nWhitemont Drive in Henrico County, Virginia.\nIn its Response, the City requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced because the\nviolation had been corrected immediately after it was discovered by VA SCC, and because the\nCity is generally engaged in a good-faith effort to improve its training and operations to avoid\nviolations in the future. While these efforts are commendable, they are ones that would be\nexpected from any prudent operator who has learned of a pipeline safety violation. I would also\nnote that the City has been found in violation of PHMSA’s safety regulation on five previous\noccasions within the past five years.2 Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered\nthe assessment criteria, I find Respondent’s arguments do not warrant a reduction of the\nproposed civil penalty for Item 1. With regard to culpability and good faith, OPS noted in the\nViolation Report that the City failed to comply with a requirement that was clearly applicable.\nAlthough Respondent did not direct its arguments in support of a reduced penalty to any single\nfactor, Respondent’s arguments relate to its culpability. Respondent argued for a reduced civil\npenalty because it corrected the probable violation after a PHMSA state partner discovered it,\nretrained its employees, implemented a new computerized material audit system to ensure field\ncrews have the necessary materials and tools for repair jobs, and opened a new training facility\nfor its employees and contractors.3 I am not persuaded by the City’s argument for a reduced\npenalty. The City bases its argument for a reduced penalty on corrective actions taken after\nPHMSA’s state partner discovered the violation, and therefore do not warrant a reduction of the\npenalty.4\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $41,400 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 (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.\n2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (October 10, 2017) (on file with PHMSA), at 2.\n3 Response, at 2 (available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).\n4 See e.g., In the Matter of Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, a subsidiary of Spectra Energy Corp., CPF No. 1-2015-\n1003, 2016 WL 1426021, at 4 (Feb. 26, 2016) (“Respondent's assertion of a general good-faith effort to\ncontinuously improve is based on corrective actions taken after PHMSA learned of the violation, and therefore does\nnot warrant a reduction in the proposed penalty.”) (available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2017-0004\nPage 4\nThe Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $41,400 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. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a brief statement of the issue(s)\nand meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically\nstays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including any\ncorrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final\nadministrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nSeptember 24, 2018\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":12207}