{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120050004","title":"DANVILLE, CITY OF — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2005-11-15","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.491(c), 192.603(b), 192.743(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120050004.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120050004.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120050004","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120050004","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving DANVILLE, CITY OF. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.491(c),  192.603(b),  192.743(a). The case was opened on 2005-11-15 and is reported as closed as of 2009-05-07. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120050004_FinalOrder_11242008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120050004/120050004_FinalOrder_11242008.pdf\n\n120050004_finalorder_11242008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120050004/120050004_finalorder_11242008_text.pdf\n\n120050004_finalorder_11242008_text.pdf\n\nO\nU S Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Ave S E\nWashington DC 20590\nNOV 24 Z08\nMr, Lyle Lacy III\nInterim City Manager\nCity of Danville\n427 Patton Street\nMunicipal Building, 4'\" Floor\nDanville, VA 24541\nRe: CPF No. 1-2005-0004\nDear Mr. Lacy:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation\nand specifies actions that must be taken to bring the City into compliance with this agency's\npipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as\ndetermined by the Director, Eastern Region, OPS, this enforcement action will be closed Your\nreceipt of this Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C. F. R ) 190. 5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D, Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region\nMr Jim Hotinger, Virginia State Corporation Commission\nCERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\n\n\n\nU. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\nCITY OF DANVILLE, VIRGINIA, )\nRespondent.\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\nCPF No. 1-2005-0004\nFINAL ORDER\nOn July 12-16, 2004, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. ) 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-\nsite pipeline safety inspection of the municipal gas system and records of the City of Danville\n(City or Respondent) in Danville, Virginia. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern\nRegion, OPS (Director) issued to Respondent, by letter dated November 15, 2005, '\na Notice of\nProbable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C. F. R. $\n190. 207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had violated 49 C. F. R. )) 192. 491(c),\n192 603, and 192. 743(a), and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct\nthe alleged violations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated January 17, 2006 (Response). Respondent\ndid not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Respondent contested some of the allegations in the Notice, offered information\nin explanation of its actions, and requested that portions of the proposed compliance order be\nremoved. The allegations were as follows:\nItem 1(a): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 491(c), which states:\n49 C. F. R. g 192. 491(c) Corrosion control records.\n(a) .\n(c) Each operator shall maintain a record of each test, survey,\n' The Eastern Region issued an incomplete NOPV dated November 4, 2005 This was replaced by one dated\nNovember 15, 2005\n\n\n\nor inspection required by this subpart in sufficient detail to\ndemonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that a\ncorrosive condition does not exist. These records must be retained for\nat least 5 years, except that records related to ($ 192. 465 (a) and (e)\nand 192. 475(b) must be retained for as long as the pipeline remains in\nservice.\nThe Notice alleged that the City violated ) 192. 491(c) and its own written procedures by failing\nto maintain adequate records of tests or inspections for corrosion, Specifically, it alleged that\nRespondent failed to maintain records of any measurements of remaining pipe wall thickness\nwhen corrosion was discovered. The City's own Procedures Manual required that\ndeterminations of \"remaining wall thickness shall be made using a mechanical or electronic\nmeasuring device\" but the City was unable to produce records that such measurements had\nactually been taken.\nIn its Response, the City made several arguments why Item 1(a) should be removed from the\nproposed compliance order. First, it indicated that following the PHMSA inspection, the City had\nprovided corrosion pit gauges to all of its distribution crews and had hired a contractor to provide\nultrasonic thickness gauge measurements. Second, it explained that it had \"always treated the\n30% remaining wall thickness as a final determination for repair or replacement based on that\nfact\" and that if the wall thickness was \"close to 30% remaining, the pipe would be replaced or\nrepaired if the area of corrosion is small. \" Third, it acknowledged that it had experienced leaks\non its system due to corrosion but asserted that its cast iron pipe was not cathodically protected\nand such corrosion was limited to \"small and isolated\" areas. Since the records retention\nrequirements of $) 192. 465(a) and (e) and 192. 475(b) relate \"primarily\" to pipelines under\ncathodic protection, Respondent argued that this Item should be removed. Response, at 2.\nI find the City's arguments unconvincing. It is undisputed that the City never provided the\nPHMSA inspector with any documentation or records showing how City personnel determined\nremaining wall thickness when corrosion was discovered or that such areas were \"small and\nisolated. \" Furthermore, the record-keeping requirements of $ 192. 491(c) apply both to protected\nand unprotected lines. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. ) 192. 491(c) by\nfailing to maintain adequate records showing that tests or inspections for remaining pipe wall\nthickness were performed, as required by the City's own procedures, and that its corrosion\ncontrol measures were adequate.\nItem 1(b): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F, R. ) 192. 491(c), as set forth\nabove, by failing to maintain adequate records showing that pipe removed from the City' s\npipeline system had been inspected for internal corrosion, as required by the City's own written\nprocedures. In its Response, the City contended that its gas supplier was contractually obligated\nto deliver non-corrosive natural gas and that internal corrosion had \"never been a factor\" in its\nsystem. Response, at 2.\nThe City, however, failed to show that it had complied with its own written procedures, which\nrequired that pipe removed from Respondent's system be inspected for signs of internal\n\n\n\ncorrosion \"and documented on a pipeline inspection Form II, 4. 4. \" Notice, at 2. Merely stating\nthat its supplier was obligated to deliver non-corrosive gas does not relieve Respondent of its\nduty to comply with the requirements of 49 C. F. R. $ 192 491(c) and its own procedures.\nLikewise, merely stating that its senior distribution personnel had never experienced internal\ncorrosion problems in the City's system does not constitute adequate proof that a corrosive\ncondition does not exist. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C, F. R. $192. 491(c) by\nfailing to maintain adequate records showing that pipe removed from its pipeline system had\nbeen inspected for internal corrosion, as required by the City's own procedures, or that a\ncorrosive condition did not exist.\nItem 1(c): The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 491(c), as set forth\nabove, by failing to maintain adequate records of its tests or inspections for atmospheric\ncorrosion. Specifically, it alleged that the City's servicemen and meter readers failed to\ndocument their observations of such corrosion, as required by the City's own written procedures.\nThe City did not dispute this allegation but indicated that it planned to amend its written\nprocedures in order to improve the reporting process and to require proper training for its\nservicemen and meter readers. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C. F, R. )\n192. 491(c) by failing to maintain adequate records of tests or inspections for atmospheric\ncorrosion performed by the City's servicemen and meter readers that would demonstrate the\nadequacy of its corrosion control measures.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 743(a), which states:\ng 192. 743(a) Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Capacity of relief\ndevices.\n(a) Pressure relief devices at pressure limiting stations and pressure\nregulating stations must have sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to which\nthey are connected. Except as provided in $ 192. 739(b), the capacity must be\nconsistent with the pressure limits of ) 192. 201(a). This capacity must be\ndetermined at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, by testing the devices in place or by review and calculations. \"\nThe Notice alleged that the City failed to test 12 pressure regulating stations in place or to\nconduct annual reviews and calculations for those that could not be tested in place. Such tests are\nnecessary for each station in order to verify that it has sufficient relief capacity to protect the\nfacility to which it is connected. The City responded by indicating that it had replaced or\nremoved from service six pressure regulating stations and that the remaining six were to be\nreplaced or removed from service \"as time and funding allow. \" The City further responded that,\nin the interim, these stations were being inspected quarterly in lieu of bemg tested in place.\nWhile the City has made efforts to come into compliance with $ 192. 743(a), its quarterly\ninspection of stations that cannot be tested in place does not satisfy the annual review and\n' The Notice cited the earlier version of $ 192 743 before it was amended effective May 17, 2004 The\namendment does not affect the allegations ansmg out of the July 12-16, 2004 inspection, as set forth in the Notice.\n\n\n\n4\ncalculations needed to verify that sufficient relief capacity exists for each station. Accordingly, I\nfind that Respondent violated 49 C, F. R. $ 192. 743(a) by failing to demonstrate that for the 12\npressure regulating stations that could not be tested in place, it performed a review and\ncalculation to verify that each station had sufficient capacity consistent with the pressure limits\nset forth in $ 192. 743.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nWITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSED VIOLATION\nItem 2 alleged that the City violated 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 603 by failing to produce any records\ndocumenting that it had conducted annual inspections and testing of pressure limiting and\nregulating stations under $ 192. 739. Specifically, it alleged that the City could not produce such\nrecords for six stations from 1999 to the present and for 33 stations from 2001 to the present.\nOne and one-half years after the inspection, the City provided documentation demonstrating that\ntimely inspections did in fact occur. Because the City has demonstrated compliance through\nsuch documentation, I hereby withdraw Item 2.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items I, 2 and 3 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C. F. R. $$ 192, 491(c), 192 603, and 192. 743(a).\nUnder 49 U. S. C. ) 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns\nor operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards\nestablished under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U. S. C, $ 60118(b) and 49 C. F. R.\n$ 190. 217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the\npipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1 In regard to Item I, the City must conduct refresher training for those employees and\nrelated contractors who could be assigned the following tasks: (1) the measurement of remaining\nwall thickness of corroded pipe using a pit gauge or similar mechanical or electronic measuring\ndevice, and the recording and evaluation of the results for possible remediation; (2) the\ninspection of metallic pipe removed from the piping system for internal corrosion, and the\nrecording of the results for an analysis of system integrity; and (3) the observation of any\nevidence of atmospheric corrosion in the course of service work and meter reading activities, and\nthe recording and evaluation of the results for possible remediation, A list of all job titles\nidentified for such refresher training in each area must be established within 60 days. All\nrefresher training must be completed within 120 days.\n2. In regard to Item 2, the allegation has been withdrawn, so the proposed compliance\nmeasures are no longer necessary.\n\n\n\n3. In regard to Item 3, the City indicates that it has now removed from its system all pressure\nrelief devices that cannot be tested in place. In the future, the City shall give advance written\nnotice to the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) of the installation of any pressure\nrelief devices that cannot be tested in place.\nThe Director shall consult with the SCC, which now exercises jurisdiction over intrastate gas\npipeline systems in Virginia under an agreement with PHMSA pursuant to 49 U, S, C. $ 60105, in\nthe implementation and monitoring of this Compliance Order The Director may grant an\nextension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a written request timely\nsubmitted by the Respondent demonstrating good cause for an extension.\nIn accordance with 49 U. S. C. ) 60122 and 49 C. F. R. ( 190. 223, failure to comply with this Final\nOrder may result in assessment of administrative civil penalties of not more than $100, 000 per\nviolation per day pursuant to 49 U. S. C. $ 60122, or in the imposition of civil judicial penalties\nand other appropriate relief pursuant to 49 U. S, C. ( 60120.\nUnder 49 C. F. R. ) 190. 215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this\nFinal Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s), The terms of the order, including\nany corrective action, shall remain in full force and effect unless the Associate Administrator,\nupon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be effective upon\nreceipt.\nNgg ) 4 2008\nDate Issued\nJef&ey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":14707}