{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120020004","title":"DANVILLE, CITY OF — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2002-02-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.457(b)(3), 192.465(a), 192.465(b), 192.469.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120020004.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120020004.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120020004","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120020004","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving DANVILLE, CITY OF. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.457(b)(3),  192.465(a),  192.465(b),  192.469. The case was opened on 2002-02-07 and is reported as closed as of 2006-06-23. Proposed civil penalty: $5,000. Assessed civil penalty: $5,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120020004_Final Order_09052002.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120020004/120020004_Final%20Order_09052002.pdf\n\n120020004_final order_09052002_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120020004/120020004_final%20order_09052002_text.pdf\n\n120020004_final order_09052002_text.pdf\n\nUS Department\nof Transportation\nResearch and\nSpecial Programs\nAdministration SEP -5 2002\n400 Seventh Si S W\nWashington DC 20590\nMr. Jerry Gwaltney\nCity Manager\nCity of Dansville\n427 Patton Street\nMunicipal Building, 4'\" Floor\nDanville, VA 24541\nRe: CPF No. 1-2002-0004\nDear Mr. Gwaltney:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in\nthe above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $5, 000, and\nrequires certain corrective action. At such time that the civil penalty is paid and the terms of the\ncompliance order are completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this enforcement\naction will be closed. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. Your receipt\nof the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C. F. R. g 190. 5.\nSincerely,\nGwendolyn M. Hi\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\nCity of Danville,\nRespondent\nCPF No. 1-2002-0004\nFlNAL ORDER\nBetween May 14 and 17, 2001, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. f 60117, a representative of the Office of\nPipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's facilities and\nrecords in Danville, Virginia. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS,\nissued to City of Danville (Respondent), by letter dated February 7, 2002, a Notice of Probable\nViolation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with\n49 C. F. R. $ 190. 207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had violated 49 C. F. R. $$\n192. 457(b)(3), 192. 465(a) and 192. 469 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $5, 000 for the first\nof the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed that Respondent take certain measures to correct\nthe alleged violations.\nBy letter dated March 5, 2002, Respondent requested an extension of time to respond to the Notice.\nBy letter dated March 19, 2002, OPS granted the extension request. Respondent responded to the\nNotice by letters dated April 5 and May 23, 2002 (Response). Respondent contested one of the\nallegations of violation, offered information explaining its position, and requested withdrawal of the\nproposed civil penalty. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore, has waived its right to\none.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nRespondent did not contest the alleged violations of g$ 192. 465(a) and 192. 469 in the Notice.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violated the following sections of 49 C. F. R. Part 192, as more\nfully described in the Notice:\n49 C. F. R. $ 192. 465(a) — failure to randomly survey at least 10 percent of the separately\nprotected service lines on an annual basis;\n\n\n\n49 C. F. R ( 192. 469— failure to install test stations verifying the adequacy of the\ncathodic protection on the supply pipe from the Transco Gate\nStation.\nItem 1 of the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 457(b)(3) by failing to\ndemonstrate that its cathodically unprotected bare and coated steel piping was evaluated for active\ncorrosion.\nIn its first response letter, Respondent acknowledged that it had no program in place to evaluate the\nunprotected bare and coated pipe in its system for active corrosion. Respondent contended that\nbecause an estimated 90 percent of its unprotected bare and coated pipe is buried under road\npavement, conducting electrical surveys of this pipe for active corrosion was impractical. In its\nsecond response letter, Respondent further explained that certain parts of its system were being leak\nsurveyed at three-year intervals in lieu of electrical testing, and requested that Item 1 of the Notice\nbe treated as a warning item and not a violation.\nSection 192. 457 requires pipeline system operators to perform a baseline survey to identify areas of\nactive corrosion in cathodically unprotected bare and coated pipeline, to take remedial action where\nactive corrosion is found and continuing corrosion could result in a condition detrimental to public\nsafety, and to continually monitor pipelines for corrosion by conducting ongoing corrosion surveys\nat the required intervals. While electrical surveys are the primary method prescribed in the\nregulations because they can identify corrosion before leaks occur, the regulations provide for the\nuse of alternative methods, including leak surveys, when electrical surveys are impractical.\nAccording to the OPS, when Respondent's corrosion technician, Mr. Fitzgerald, was asked whether\nleak survey records were being used to identify areas of active corrosion, he acknowledged that no\nsuch surveys had been performed and that these records did not exist. Therefore, Respondent's use\nof the leak survey method was inadequate for purposes of compliance with g 192. 457 because\nRespondent failed to demonstrate that leak survey records were actually used to identify areas of\nactive corrosion. Moreover, OPS guidelines recommend that in locations where electrical surveys\ncan not be performed, leak surveys done in lieu of electrical testing should be conducted at least once\nper year. However, Respondent only performed a leak survey every three years. Performing leak\nsurveys at more frequent intervals is critical to public safety as leak surveying identifies corrosion\nonly after leaking begins. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 457(b)(3)\nby failing to evaluate its cathodically unprotected bare and coated pipeline for active corrosion.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U. S. C $ 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $25, 000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $500, 000 for any related series of\nviolations.\n\n\n\n49 U. S. C. $ 60122 and 49 C. F. R. ) 190. 225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, degree\nof Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to pay the\npenalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on Respondent's\nability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.\nAs for the violation of 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 457(b)(3) (Item 1), failing to demonstrate that bare and\ncoated steel piping was evaluated for active corrosion, a civil penalty of $5, 000 was proposed. In\nits response, Respondent stated that it was in the process of replacing its unprotected bare pipe in\nconjunction with a 15-year program to replace the metallic mains in its system and requested, in light\nof this replacement strategy and the fact that prior OPS inspections had not resulted in citations for\nthese deficiencies, that the proposed civil penalty not be assessed. While Respondent's replacement\nprogram will ultimately reduce the number of unprotected metallic lines in this system over time,\nthe failure to develop and implement a documented program to survey and identify the presence of\nactive corrosion can result in dangerous leaks or accidents hazardous to public safety before all of\nthe unprotected pipe is replaced. Respondent's 15-year replacement program does not supplant the\nneed to identify current areas of active corrosion and implement remedial measures. Moreover, a\nprevious inspection that does not result in an enforcement action does not relieve Respondent's\nobligation to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. A previous inspection may not focus on\nthe areas that a subsequent inspection does.\nRespondent has not presented information that warrants withdrawal of the civil penalty.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent\na civil penalty of $5, 000 for violation of 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 457(b)(3). A determination has been made\nthat Respondent has the ability to pay this penalty without adversely affecting its ability to operate.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Payment can be made by\nsending a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number for this case) payable to\n\"U. S. Department of Transportation\" to the Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney\nAeronautical Center, Financial Operations Division (AMZ-320), P. O. Box 25770, Oklahoma City,\nOK 73125.\nFederal regulations (49 C. F. R. $ 89. 21(b)(3)) also permit this payment to be made by wire\ntransfer, through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U. S.\nTreasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. After completing the wire transfer,\nsend a copy of the electronic funds transfer receipt to the Office of the Chief Counsel (DCC-1),\nResearch and Special Programs Administration, Room 8407, U. S. Department of Transportation,\n400 Seventh Street, S W.\n, Washington, D. C. 20590-0001.\nQuestions concernmg wire transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division\n(AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center,\nP. O. Box 25770, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-4719.\n\n\n\nFailure to pay the $5, 000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in\naccordance with 31 U. S. C. $ 3717, 31 C. F. R. ) 901. 9 and 49 C. F. R. $ 89. 23. Pursuant to those same\nauthorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not\nmade within 110 days of service Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral\nof the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in an United States District Court.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nUnder 49 U S. C. ) 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or\noperates a pipehne facihty is required to comply with the apphcable safety standards estabhshed\nunder chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U. S. C $ 60118(b) and 49 C. F. R ( 190 217,\nRespondent is hereby ordered to take the following actions to ensure comphance with the pipehne\nsafety regulations applicable to its operations:\n(1) Estabhsh written operating and maintenance procedures for the surveying and\ndetermination of areas of active corrosion for cathodically unprotected bare and coated\nsteel pipe in its system that meet the requirements of 49 C. F. R. ) 192. 457. For those\nareas that are determined to have active corrosion, Respondent shall provide a schedule\nto the Director, Eastern Region, OPS for the installation of cathodic protection or other\nremedial measures.\n(2) List the number of separately protected service lines and verify their correspondence\nwith the Annual Report submissions. The hst shall also contain the address and location\nof separately protected service hnes and mains not exceeding 100 feet. Respondent shall\ndevelop and estabhsh a written audit program to verify that each year's sample equals\nor exceeds the 10 percent required by regulation\n(3) Install test wires on all casings over steel pipe on the supply hne from the Transco Gate\nStation, conduct the required testing at the appropriate intervals, and record the number\nand location of the test leads installed and the pipe-to-soil and case-to-soil readings per\nthe applicable re~lations. Respondent shall also prepare formal plans to correct shorted\ncasings and integrate these plans into its operations and maintenance manual.\n(4) Submit all documents, procedures, action plans, schedules and evaluations\ndemonstrating comphance with this Order within 90 days following receipt of this Final\nOrder to the Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, 400 7 \" Street, S. W.\n,\nRoom 7128, Washington, DC 20590.\n(5) The Director, Eastern Region, OPS may grant an extension of time to comply with any\nof the required items upon a request by the Respondent demonstrating good cause for\nan extension.\n\n\n\nWARNING ITEM\nThe Notice did not propose any penalty with respect to the following item. Respondent is warned\nthat if it fails to take appropriate corrective action to address this item, and a violation comes to the\nattention of OPS in a subsequent inspection, enforcement action will be taken.\nItem 3 in the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to properly test the cathodic protection rectifier\nat Memorial Drive between August 21, 2000 and December 4, 2000.\nUnder 49 C. F. R 190. 215, Respondent has a right to petition for reconsideration of this Final Order.\nIf you pay the penalty, the case closes automatically and you waive the right to petition for\nreconsideration. The filing of the petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty\nassessed. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this Final Order\nand must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The terms and conditions of this Final Order are\neffective on receipt.\nFailure to comply with this Final Order may result in the assessment of civil penalties of up to\n$25, 000 per violation per day, or in the referral of the case for judicial enforcement.\nStacey Gerard\nAssociate Administrator For Pipeline Safety\nDate Issued","truncated":false,"body_characters":14091}