{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 12025004WL","title":"RICHMOND, CITY OF — Warning Letter","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2025-01-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED warning letter citing 192.273(b), 192.605(a), 192.616(a), 192.805(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-12025004wl.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-12025004wl.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-12025004wl","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/12025004WL","body":"Warning Letter involving RICHMOND, CITY OF. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.273(b),  192.605(a),  192.616(a),  192.805(b). The case was opened on 2025-01-15 and is reported as closed as of 2025-01-15. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n12025004WL_Warning Letter_01152024_(23-272518).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12025004WL/12025004WL_Warning%20Letter_01152024_(23-272518).pdf\n\n12025004WL_Warning Letter_01152024_(23-272518)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12025004WL/12025004WL_Warning%20Letter_01152024_(23-272518)_text.pdf\n\n12025004WL_Warning Letter_01152024_(23-272518)_text.pdf\n\nWARNING LETTER\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY\nJanuary 15, 2025\nMr. Daniel Rifenburgh\nDirector, Richmond Gas Works\nCity of Richmond\n400 Richmond Highway\nRichmond, Virginia 23224\nCPF 1-2025-004-WL\nDear Mr. Rifenburgh:\nBetween February 8, 2023 and April 12, 2024, an inspector from the Virginia State Corporation\nCommission, Division of Pipeline Safety (VA SCC), acting as Agent for the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United\nStates Code (U.S.C.) inspected the City of Richmond (City).\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected\nand the probable violations are:\n1. § 192.273 General\n(a) …\n(b) Each joint must be made in accordance with written procedures\nthat have been proven by test or experience to produce strong gastight\njoints.\nThe City failed to make each joint in accordance with written procedures that have been proved\nby test or experience to produce strong gastight joints. Specifically, the City failed to follow its\nmanufacturer’s procedure, by not scribing the area on the pipe prior to scraping the pipe.\nThe City’s procedure requires manufacturer’s procedures to be followed when performing an\nelectrofusion. Georg Fischer Electrofusion manual stated in part:\n\n\n\n“1. Establish a CLEAN ZONE, mark an initial clean zone.\n…\n2. Establish a SCRAPE/PEELING ZONE. Mark a second area inside the initial clean zone that\nis SLIGHTLY LONGER THAN THE AREA TO BE PEELED. …\n3. Scribe the pipe surface at regular intervals or mark in a criss-cross pattern, so that any areas\nmissed by the scraping tool will be visible by the marks that still remain. MARK SLIGHTLY\nBEYOND THE SCRAPE/PEELING ZONE, SO THAT SOME WITNESS MARKS WILL\nBE VISIBLE AFTER PEELING. …\n4. Allow marks to dry before scraping/peeling the pipe and make sure that the scraping tool does\nnot contact pipe that has not been cleaned previously. …”\nDuring the inspection, the VA SCC inspector observed the City perform an electrofusion without\nscribing prior to scraping the pipe.\nTherefore, the City failed make each joint in accordance with written procedures, as required by\n§ 192.273(b).\n2. § 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each\npipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and\nmaintenance activities and for emergency response. For transmission\nlines, the manual must also include procedures for handling abnormal\noperations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the\noperator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each\ncalendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a\npipeline system commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be\nkept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are\nconducted.\nThe City failed to follow for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting\noperations and maintenance activities and for emergency response. Specifically, the City failed to\nfollow its Natural Gas Procedures Manual (Procedure), by not ensuring that the squeeze-off point\nwas installed at least 12 inches away from a mechanical coupling.\nProcedure Volume II, Chapter 3, Section VII, Pressure, Flow Control and Tapping of Plastic Pipe\nstated in part:\n“IV PROCEDURES\nA. Squeeze-Off Tool Operation\n1. …\n3. The point of squeeze shall be located at least three diameters of pipe or 12”, whichever is greater,\naway from the nearest:\na. Fused joint\nb. Transition fitting (also, do not squeeze between the steel portion of the fitting and the first fused\njoint)\nc. Mechanical coupling\nd. Previous squeeze-off location.\n\n\n\nDuring the inspection, the VA SCC inspector observed the City had squeezed-off the service line\nupon arrival. The inspector then observed the City install an excess flow valve (mechanical\ncoupling) approximately eight inches from the squeeze-off point. Prior to joining the service pipe\nto the coupling, VA SCC inspector brought the concern to the City’s attention.\nAfter VA SCC brought the concern to the City’s attention, the City dug and exposed the tapping\ntee, removed the squeezed portion of pipe entirely as well as the coupling. A new section of pipe\nand new excess flow valve mechanical coupling were installed.\nTherefore, the City failed to follow written procedures, by installing a squeeze-off within the\nminimum prescribed distance from a mechanical coupling, as required by § 192.605(a).\n3. § 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each\npipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and\nmaintenance activities and for emergency response. For transmission\nlines, the manual must also include procedures for handling abnormal\noperations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the\noperator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each\ncalendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a\npipeline system commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be\nkept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are\nconducted.\nThe City failed to follow for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting\noperations and maintenance activities and for emergency response. Specifically, the City failed to\nfollow its Natural Gas Procedures Manual (Procedure), by not installing a regulator vent beyond\nminimum prescribed distances.\nProcedure Volume II, Chapter 3, Section X, Customer Manifolds, Meters, and Regulators, Exhibit\nB stated in part:\n“Minimum Meter Location Requirements:\n1. Regulator Vent* must be installed to maintain a minimum clearance of 36 inches from ANY:\n-Door (Including Garage Doors)\n-Windows that Open\n-Gravity Air Opening (into a building)\n-Rotating Electrical Equipment\n-Electrical Motors\n-Electrical Outlets\n-Electrical Switches\n-Electrical Disconnects\n…”\nProcedure Volume II, Chapter 3, Section X, Customer Manifolds, Meters, and Regulators,\nExhibit C stated in part:\n“Meter and Regulator Installation Location and Clearances\n\n\n\n•\n…\n• The meter must be in a readily accessible location where gas from the vent can escape\nfreely into the atmosphere and:\no …\no 3’ from any window that opens\no 3’ from any other opening into or under the building including dryer vents and\nfoundation vents\no 3’ from any ignition source including:\n Electric meter\n Electric panel\n Electric outlet\n Electric pedestal\n Grounding electrode\n Air conditioning unit and associated disconnect\n Pad mounted transformer\no 1’ from any water spigot\nAll measures are from the regulator vent. If there is no regulator, then measurements are from the\nmeter inlet. In some cases the vent can be extended to achieve the required clearance listed above.\nAny exceptions must be approved by the appropriate RGW Operations Manager.”\nDuring the inspection, the VA SCC inspector observed the City had installed a regulator vent 21-\ninches away from a dryer vent, 21-inches from a window that opens, and 20-inches from an air\nconditioning unit.\nAfter VA SCC brought the concern to the City’s attention, the City relocated the regulator vent\naway from openings and any ignition sources.\nTherefore, the City failed to follow written procedures, by not installing a regulator vent beyond\nminimum prescribed distances, as required by § 192.605(a).\n4. § 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each\npipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and\nmaintenance activities and for emergency response. For transmission\nlines, the manual must also include procedures for handling abnormal\noperations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the\noperator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each\ncalendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a\npipeline system commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be\nkept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are\nconducted.\nThe City failed to follow for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting\noperations and maintenance activities and for emergency response. Specifically, the City failed to\nfollow Procedure Volume II, Chapter 3, Section X, Customer Manifolds, Meters, and Regulators\n(Regulator Procedure), by installing 16 regulator vents within the prescribed minimum clearance.\n\n\n\nThe Regulator Procedure Exhibit B stated in part:\n“Minimum Meter Location Requirements:\n1. Regulator Vent* must be installed to maintain a minimum clearance of 36 inches from ANY:\n-…\n-Rotating Electrical Equipment\n-Electrical Motors”\nDuring the inspection, the VA SCC inspector observed the City had recently installed regulators.\nThe vents to the exterior cabinet of nearby air conditioner units were within 36-inches at the\nfollowing locations:\n• 5249 Goolsby Court\n• 5247 & 5245 Goolsby Court\n• 5243 & 5241 Goolsby Court\n• 5239 & 5237 Goolsby Court\n• 5235 & 5233 Goolsby Court\n• 5231 & 5229 Goolsby Court\n• 5227 & 5225 Goolsby Court\n• 5223 & 5221 Goolsby Court\n• 5219 & 5217 Goolsby Court\n• 5215 & 5213 Goolsby Court\n• 5211 Goolsby Court\n• 5207 & 5205 Goolsby Court\n• 5203 & 5201 Goolsby Court\n• 5200 & 5202 Goolsby Court\n• 5204 & 5206 Goolsby Court\n• 2742 Goolsby Avenue\nThe City remediated the regulator vents identified by VA SCC.\nHowever, the City failed to follow written procedures, by not installing regulator vents with\nprescribed minimum clearances, as required by § 192.605(a).\n5. § 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each\npipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and\nmaintenance activities and for emergency response. For transmission\nlines, the manual must also include procedures for handling abnormal\noperations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the\noperator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each\ncalendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a\npipeline system commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be\nkept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are\nconducted.\n\n\n\nThe City failed to follow for each pipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting\noperations and maintenance activities and for emergency response. Specifically, the City failed to\nfollow its Natural Gas Procedures Manual (Procedure), by boring within two feet of a known\nutility.\nProcedure Volume II, Chapter 3, Section II, Pipeline Construction, Paragraph H stated in part that\n“Boring shall not be performed within 2’(ft) of a known utility”.\nDuring the inspection, the VA SCC inspector observed the City had bored a service line within\n14-inches from an existing gas service line marking and 19-inches from an existing water service\nline marking.\nTherefore, the City failed to follow written procedures, by boring within two feet of known\nutilities, as required by § 192.605(a).\n6. § 192.616 Public Awareness.\n(a) Except for an operator of a master meter or petroleum\ngas system covered under paragraph (j) of this section,\neach pipeline operator must develop and implement a written\ncontinuing public education program that follows the guidance\nprovided in the American Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended\nPractice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7).\nThe City failed to develop and implement a written continuing education program that follows the\nguidance in the API RP 1162. Specifically, the City failed to provide messaging to excavators at\nthe prescribed minimum frequency.\nPublic Awareness Plan Gas Distribution, revised December 1, 2021, stated in part:\n“6.0 Message Type, Content and Frequency\nThe following messages type and content will be sent to each stakeholder audience via the media\nlisted at the frequency indicated on the charts on page 13 and 14 [sic].\n…\nSummary of Public Awareness Communications\nStakeholder\nAudience\nMessage Type Suggested Frequency Suggested Delivery\nMethod\nand/or Media\n… … … …\nExcavators/\nContractors\nBaseline Messages:\n• Pipeline\npurpose and\nreliability\n• Hazard\nawareness and\nprevention\nBaseline Frequency:\nAnnual\nBaseline Activity:\n• One-Call\nCenter\noutreach (DPC,\nPIO)\n• Group\nmeetings\n(DPC, PIO,\nTD)\n\n\n\n• Leak\nrecognition and\nresponse\n• Damage\nprevention\nawareness\n• How to get\nadditional\ninformation\nSupplemental\nFrequency:\n• As scheduled\nby SCC\n• After\nexcavation\ndamage\n• Twice\nAnnually\nSupplemental\nActivity:\n• Radio/TV Adv.\n(PIO)\n• Targeted\ndistribution of\nprint materials\nto excavators\nwho have hit\nour facilities\n(PIO, DPC)\n• Targeted\ndistribution of\nprint materials\nto a random\nselection of\nother\nexcavators\n(DPC, PIO)\nDuring the inspection, the VA SCC inspector requested records of public awareness messaging to\nexcavators. The City was unable to provide documentation.\nTherefore, the City failed to implement a written continuing public education program, by not\nproviding messaging to excavators at minimum required intervals, as required by § 192.616(a).\n7. § 192.616 Public Awareness.\n(a) …\n(c) The operator must follow the general program\nrecommendations, including baseline and supplemental requirements\nof API RP 1162, unless the operator provides justification in its\nprogram or procedural manual as to why compliance with all or certain\nprovisions of the recommended practice is not practicable and not\nnecessary for safety.\nThe City failed to follow the general program recommendations, including baseline and\nsupplemental requirements of API RD 1162. Specifically, the City failed to provide management\nsupport. as required by API RP 1162 Section 2.51, in accordance with § 192.616(c).\nPublic Awareness Plan Gas Distribution, revised December 1, 2021discusses responsibilities of\nthe City’s Public Information Officer (PIO) which stated in part:\n” DPU Public Information Officer (PIO) is responsible for preparing public education materials,\nplacing ads in television, radio, and newspaper. The PIO is also responsible for periodically\nupdating the DPU/RGW website and performing random surveys/audits at various\ncustomer/noncustomers/contractor and emergency/public officials' seminars and events. …”\n\n\n\nDuring the inspection, the VA SCC inspector discovered the City’s PIO has not attended its Public\nAwareness Program quarterly meetings since December 2021. The City’s PIO did not appear to\nrespond to performance and compliance need requests from the City’s Public Awareness Program\nstaff.\nTherefore, the City failed to follow the general program recommendations of API RP 1162 by not\nproviding management support, as required by § 192.616(c).\n8. § 192.805 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification\nprogram. The program shall include provisions to:\n(a) …\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered\ntasks are qualified;\nThe City failed to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are\nqualified. Specifically, the City failed to ensure that personnel were qualified to squeeze off plastic\npipe.\nDuring the inspection, the VA SCC inspector observed the City had installed a squeeze off tool on\nthe service line installed by Technician A. VA SCC witnessed Technician A squeeze off the\nservice line again. VA SCC requested qualification records for Technician A. The City provided\ntwo sets of qualification records. Neither record contained information the covered task “squeeze\noff pipe” for Technician A.\nTherefore, the City failed to ensure individuals performing covered tasks were qualified, as\nrequired by § 192.805(b).\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$266,015 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,660,135 for a related\nseries of violations. For violation occurring on or after January 6, 2023 and before December 28,\n2023, the maximum penalty may not exceed $257,664 per violation per day the violation persists,\nup to a maximum of $2,576,627 for a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or\nafter March 21, 2022 and before January 6, 2023, the maximum penalty may not exceed $239,142\nper violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,391,142 for a related series of\nviolations. For violation occurring on or after May 3, 2021 and before March 21, 2022, the\nmaximum penalty may not exceed $225,134 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a\nmaximum of $2,251,334 for a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after\nJanuary 11, 2021 and before May 3, 2021, the maximum penalty may not exceed $222,504 per\nviolation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,225,034 for a related series of\nviolations. For violation occurring on or after July 31, 2019 and before January 11, 2021, the\nmaximum penalty may not exceed $218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a\nmaximum of $2,186,465 for a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after\nNovember 27, 2018 and before July 31, 2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per\nviolation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,132,679.\n\n\n\nWe have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case, and have\ndecided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment proceedings at this\ntime. We advise you to correct the item(s) identified in this letter. Failure to do so will result in\nCity of Richmond being subject to additional enforcement action.\nNo reply to this letter is required. If you choose to reply, in your correspondence please refer to\nCPF 1-2025-004-WL. Be advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement\naction is subject to being made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your\nresponsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b), along with the\ncomplete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions\nyou believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the\nredacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).\nSincerely,\nRobert Burrough\nDirector, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n1 API RP 1162 Public Awareness Programs for Pipeline Operators\n2 Public Awareness Program Development\n2.5 Management Support\nFor a Public Awareness Program to achieve its objectives, ongoing support within the operator’s organization is\ncrucial. Management should demonstrate its support through company policy, management participation, and\nallocation of resources and funding. Finding and resource requirements for an operator’s Public Awareness\nProgram development and implementation will vary according to the program’s objectives, design, and scope. Full\norganizational support can make a marked difference in the way the Public Awareness Program is received and can\naffect the overall effectiveness and success of the program.","truncated":false,"body_characters":19955}