RICHMOND, CITY OF — Warning Letter

120130004W_Warning Letter_09062013_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 WARNING LETTER EXPRESS OVERNIGHT MAIL September 06, 2013 Robert Steidel, Director City of Richmond, DPU 730 East Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23219 CPF 1-2013-0004W Dear Mr. Steidel: On April 17, 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. § 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies. (a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual must also include procedures for handling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted. The City failed to follow for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities. Specifically, the City failed on 12 occasions to follow its Procedure Manual Volume II, Chapter 7, Section IX, developed to comply with §192.617, by not performing an adequate failure investigation.#

120130004W_Warning Letter_09062013_text.pdf, page 21-2013-0004W On twelve occasions in 2011, the Material/Failure Report Forms were inaccurate and / or incomplete as noted below: 1. 2. The City failed to determine the cause of the failure to minimize the possibility of recurrence. The investigations had findings inconsistent with failed pipe section or were incomplete as a result of the failed sample not being returned for analysis. The VA SCC followed up on this finding with the City by letter, and received a City response dated July 9, 2012. 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. We have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case, and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to correct the item identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in The City of Richmond being subject to additional enforcement action. No reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer to CPF 1- 2013-0004W, 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. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being 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). Sincerely, Byron Coy, PE Director, Eastern Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Cc: James Hotinger, VA SCC 120130004W_WL_09062013 Page 2 of 2#