{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120120006","title":"DANVILLE, CITY OF — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-12-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.161(b), 192.199(h), 192.479(b), 192.707(c), 192.707(d)(1), 192.805(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120120006.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120120006.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120120006","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120120006","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving DANVILLE, CITY OF. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.161(b),  192.199(h),  192.479(b),  192.707(c),  192.707(d)(1),  192.805(a). The case was opened on 2012-12-13 and is reported as closed as of 2017-05-19. Proposed civil penalty: $80,000. Assessed civil penalty: $0. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120120006_Closure Letter_05192017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120120006/120120006_Closure%20Letter_05192017.pdf\n\n120120006_Closure Letter_05192017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120120006/120120006_Closure%20Letter_05192017_text.pdf\n\n120120006_Consent Agreement and Order_07192016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120120006/120120006_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_07192016.pdf\n\n120120006_Consent Agreement and Order_07192016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120120006/120120006_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_07192016_text.pdf\n\n120120006_NOPV_PCP_PCO_12132012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120120006/120120006_NOPV_PCP_PCO_12132012.pdf\n\n120120006_NOPV_PCP_PCO_12132012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120120006/120120006_NOPV_PCP_PCO_12132012_text.pdf\n\n120120006_Operator_Response_and_Request_for_Hearing_01102013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120120006/120120006_Operator_Response_and_Request_for_Hearing_01102013.pdf\n\n120120006_Consent Agreement and Order_07192016_text.pdf\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\nIn the Matter of )\nCity of Danville, Virginia, ) CPF No. 1-2012-0006\na municipal corporation, )\nRespondent. )\n)\n)\n)\n)\nCONSENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER\nBetween January 27 and December 29, 2011, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code,\ninspectors from the Virginia State Corporation Commission (VA SCC), acting as agents for the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), inspected the City of Danville’s (City or Respondent) pipeline facilities in Danville,\nVirginia. The City’s pipeline facilities consist of approximately 359 miles of distribution mains,\n26 district regulators to supply gas at necessary pressures, and gas-storage capacity.\nAs a result of this inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety (Director),\nissued to Respondent, by letter dated December 13, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation,\nProposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), a copy of which is attached\nhereto as Appendix A. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nRespondent had committed six violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192, assessing a total civil penalty of\n$80,000 for two of the violations, and requiring the City to take various remedial actions to\ncorrect the violations.\nThe City responded to the Notice by letter dated January 10, 2013 (Response), and requested a\nhearing, which was held on November 21, 2013. Respondent has proposed, as part of this\nproceeding and two unrelated enforcement actions, CPF No. 1-2013-0009 and CPF No. 1-2013-\n0010, to resolve these matters via administrative consent agreements.\nHaving agreed that settlement of this proceeding will avoid further administrative proceedings or\nlitigation, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 190, and upon consent and agreement of Respondent and\nPHMSA (collectively, the Parties), the Parties hereby agree as follows:\nA. General Provisions.\n1. Respondent acknowledges that its pipeline system is subject to the jurisdiction of\nthe federal Pipeline Safety Laws, 49 U.S.C. 60101, et seq., and the regulations and\nadministrative orders issued thereunder. As used in this Consent Agreement and Order\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2012-0006\n2\n(Agreement), the terms “pipeline system” and “pipeline facility” shall be defined as in\n49 C.F.R. Part 192. Respondent acknowledges that it received proper notice of PHMSA’s\naction in this proceeding and that the Notice states claims upon which relief may be granted\npursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60101, et seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder.\n2. Respondent consents to the issuance of this Agreement and hereby waives any\nfurther procedural requirements with respect to its issuance. Respondent waives all rights to\ncontest the adequacy of notice or the validity of this Agreement, including all rights to\nadministrative or judicial hearings, reviews, or appeals.\n3. This Agreement shall apply to and be binding upon PHMSA and Respondent, its\nofficers, directors, and employees, and its successors, assigns, or other entities or persons\notherwise bound by law. Respondent agrees to provide a copy of this Agreement and any\nincorporated work plans and schedules to all City officers, employees, agents, and successors-in-\ninterest whose duties might reasonably include compliance with this Agreement.\n4. This Agreement constitutes the final, complete, and exclusive agreement and\nunderstanding between the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in this Agreement,\nand the Parties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements, or understandings\nrelating to the settlement other than those expressly contained in this Agreement and its\nappendices.\n5. Nothing in this Agreement affects or relieves the City of its responsibility to\ncomply with all applicable requirements of the federal Pipeline Safety Laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101,\net seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. Nothing in this Agreement alters\nPHMSA’s right of access, entry, inspection, and information-gathering or its authority to bring\nany enforcement action against Respondent pursuant to the federal Pipeline Safety Laws, the\nregulations and orders issued thereunder, or any other provision of federal or state law.\n6. This Agreement does not waive or modify any federal, state, or local laws or\nregulations that are applicable to the City or its pipeline system. This Agreement is not a permit,\nor a modification of any permit, under any federal, state, or local laws or regulations.\nRespondent remains responsible for achieving and maintaining compliance with all applicable\nfederal, state, and local laws, regulations and permits.\n7. This Agreement neither affects the terms of the Proposed Compliance Order\ncontained in the Notice, attached hereto as Appendix A, nor relieves Respondent from its\nresponsibility to complete the remedial actions described therein. Except as expressly provided\nunder this Agreement, the Parties agree that the City will perform all of the corrective actions\nset forth in the Proposed Compliance Order and that the Parties will have all their respective\nrights and responsibilities under the terms set forth in the Proposed Compliance Order and\nunder 49 C.F.R. Part 190 relating to the implementation and enforcement of that Proposed\nCompliance Order.\n8. This Agreement does not create rights in, or grant any cause of action to, any third\nparty not a party to this Agreement. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is not liable\nfor any injuries or damages to persons or property arising from acts or omissions of Respondent\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2012-0006\n3\nor its officers, employees, agents, or successors-in-interest in carrying out the work required by\nthis Agreement. The City agrees to hold harmless DOT, its officers, employees, agents, and\nrepresentatives from any and all causes of action arising from any acts or omissions of\nRespondent or its contractors in carrying out the work required by this Agreement.\n9. The Parties agree that the facts as alleged in each item of the Notice are true and\ncorrect and that each item may be considered by PHMSA to be a prior offense in any future\nPHMSA enforcement action taken against the City.\n10. Respondent agrees to complete the corrective actions specified in Section B\n(Additional Work to be Performed) of this Agreement.\n11. Respondent agrees that the activities described in Section B of this Agreement,\nand in all work plans and schedules incorporated thereunder, are not required by any federal,\nstate, or local law or regulation and do not include actions which Respondent would likely be\nrequired to perform:\na. b. c. d. e. under the Proposed Compliance Order contained in the Notice;\nas injunctive relief, including as a mitigation project, in the instant case;\nas injunctive relief in any other existing legal action initiated by PHMSA or\nany other regulatory agency against Respondent;\nas part of an existing settlement or order in another legal action; or\nunder any other federal, state, or local requirement.\nB. Additional Work to be Performed.\n12. Respondent agrees to perform the actions set forth in the Work Plan,\nincorporated herein as Appendix B to this Agreement. Respondent will complete the actions\ndescribed in Parts 2 and 3 of the Work Plan (General Information and Completed Remedial\nActions and Additional Proposed Actions) and will adhere to the schedule set forth in Part 4 of\nthe Work Plan (Project Schedule).\n13. Respondent agrees to revise the Work Plan as necessary to incorporate new\ninformation obtained during the evaluations and remedial activities performed under the Work\nPlan. Respondent shall submit any such plan revisions to the Director for prior approval. The\nDirector may approve Work Plan revision elements incrementally.\n14. The Director may grant an extension of time for completion of any of the work to\nbe performed under this Section B (Additional Work to be Performed) upon Respondent’s\ntimely, written request that demonstrates both good cause for an extension and provides\nsufficient detail to enable the Director to evaluate Respondent’s request.\n15. upon request.Respondent agrees to maintain documentation of the costs associated with\nimplementation of the Work Plan and agrees to make this information available to PHMSA\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2012-0006\n4\nC. Review and Approval Process.\n16. With respect to any submission by the City under Section B (Additional Work to\nbe Performed) of this Agreement that requires the approval of the Director, the Director may: (a)\napprove, in whole or in part, the submission; (b) disapprove the submission on specified\nconditions; (c) disapprove, in whole or in part, the submission; or (d) any combination of the\nforegoing. In the event of approval in whole, in part, or upon conditions, the City will proceed\nto take all actions required by the submission as modified by the Director, subject to\nRespondent’s right to invoke the procedures in Section D (Dispute Resolution) with respect to\nany conditions identified by the Director. In the event that the Director does not approve all or\nany portion of a submission, the Director will provide the City with a written notice of the\ndeficiencies. Respondent will correct all deficiencies within the time specified by the Director\nand resubmit it for acceptance. If Respondent fails to correct the specified deficiencies, the\nDirector may invoke the dispute resolution process provided in Section D below.\nD. Dispute Resolution.\n17. Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph 7 above, the Director and\nRespondent will attempt to informally resolve any disputes arising under this Agreement. If the\nCity and the Director are unable to informally resolve the dispute within 15 business days,\nRespondent may request in writing, within 10 business days, a written determination resolving\nthe dispute by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA. Along with its request,\nRespondent will provide the Associate Administrator with all information Respondent believes\nis relevant to the dispute. If the request is submitted as provided herein, the Associate\nAdministrator will issue a written determination that shall constitute final agency action. The\nexistence of a dispute and PHMSA’s consideration of matters placed in dispute shall not excuse,\ntoll, or suspend any term or timeframe for completion of any work to be performed under this\nAgreement during the pendency of the dispute resolution process, except as agreed by the\nRegional Director or the Associate Administrator in writing.\nE. Enforcement.\n18. This Agreement, including all plans and schedules incorporated by reference, is\nsubject to all enforcement authorities available to PHMSA under 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and\n49 C.F.R. Part 190, including administrative civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, of up to\n$200,000 per violation for each day the violation continues and referral of the case to the\nAttorney General for judicial enforcement, if PHMSA determines that Respondent is not\ncomplying with the terms of this Agreement in accordance with determinations made by the\nDirector, or if appealed, in accordance with decisions of the Associate Administrator. All other\nwork plans and associated schedules developed under Section B shall be automatically\nincorporated into this Agreement and are enforceable in the same manner.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2012-0006\n5\nF. Civil Penalties.\n19. PHMSA agrees to withdraw the civil penalties for Items 1 and 2, proposed in the\nNotice, in exchange for completion of the Project Schedule outlined in Part 4 of the Work Plan.\n20. If the Work Plan is not implemented within the timeframe contemplated in the\nProject Schedule, subject to any extensions approved by the Director, PHMSA reserves the\nright to take further enforcement action, including assessment of the civil penalties proposed in\nthe Notice.\nG. Miscellaneous.\n21. Respondent agrees to maintain records demonstrating compliance with all\nrequirements of this Agreement for a period of at least five years following completion of all\nwork to be performed. PHMSA and the VA SCC will have the right to inspect the records and\nfacilities of the City, or any contractor, agent, or successor-in-interest thereof, upon reasonable\nnotice, to confirm that the compliance terms of this Agreement are being undertaken in\nconformity with the terms of this Agreement.\n22. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement may be modified only by the\nmutual agreement of the Parties as set forth in writing and signed by the Parties.\n23. Each undersigned representative of the Parties certifies that he is fully authorized\nby the party represented to enter into the terms and conditions hereof and to execute and legally\nbind that party to it.\n24. Respondent certifies that it is not a party to any open federal financial assistance\ntransaction that is funding or could fund the same activities described in this Agreement,\nincluding all activities described in the Work Plan or any other incorporated plan or schedule.\nRespondent further certifies that it has inquired of City departments and of any parties acting on\nthe behalf of the City whether they are a party to any open federal financial assistance\ntransaction that is funding or could fund the same activities described in this Agreement, and\nhas been informed by said parties that they are not subject to such a transaction.\nH. Effective Date and Term.\n25. The “Effective Date,” as used herein, is the date on which this Agreement is\nsigned by both Respondent and PHMSA. Unless otherwise specified, all deadlines for actions\nrequired by the Agreement run from the Effective Date.\nI. Termination.\n26. This Agreement will terminate upon the completion of all terms set forth in the\nProposed Compliance Order and Section B (Additional Work to Be Performed), as determined\nby the Director. Respondent may request, and PHMSA will provide, written confirmation of the\ntermination of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement prevents Respondent from completing\nany of the obligations earlier than the deadlines provided for herein.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2012-0006\n6\nThe Parties hereby agree to all conditions and terms of this Agreement:\nFor PHMSA: For City of Danville, Virginia:\n_____________________________ _______________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Name: _________________________\nActing Associate Administrator for Title: __________________________\nPipeline Safety, PHMSA City of Danville, Virginia\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2012-0006\n7\nAPPENDIX A\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2012-0006\n8\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nUPS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY\nDecember 13, 2012\nMr. Joe King\nDanville City Manager\n427 Patton St., Room 404\nDanville, VA 24541\nCPF 1-2012-0006\nDear Mr. King:\nBetween January 27 and December 29, 2011, inspectors from the Virginia State Corporation Commission\n(VA SCC) acting as Agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\npursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected the City of Danville’s (City) pipeline\nfacilities in Danville, VA.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety\nRegulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violations are:\n1. § 192.479 Atmospheric corrosion control: General.\n(b) Coating material must be suitable for the prevention of atmospheric corrosion.\nThe City failed on one (1) occasion to coat a pipeline with a material that is suitable for the prevention of\natmospheric corrosion.\nThe VA SCC inspectors observed and photographed an exposed main under bridges at Piedmont Drive\nand the Sandy River with areas of atmospheric corrosion. According to a City representative, only a\nprimer coat was installed on the surface of the exposed piping, which is insufficient to protect the exposed\nmain from atmospheric corrosion.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2012-0006\n9\n2. § 192.707 Line markers for mains and transmission lines.\n(c) Pipelines aboveground. Line markers must be placed and maintained along each section of a\nmain and transmission line that is located aboveground in an area accessible to the public.\nThe City failed to install pipeline markers near a main that was accessible to the public. The City failed\non three (3) occasions to have a pipeline marker on an above ground main that is accessible to the public\nat Pumpkin Creek Drive at the Pumpkin Creek Bridge, at the London Bridge Drive over the Pumpkin\nCreek and at the telemetry transmitter on London Bridge Drive.\nThe VA SCC inspectors observed and photographed an exposed main under bridges at the above\nlocations, and at a take-off line connected to a main and a telemeter transmitter, and found no\nwarning or Company identification markers as required by the regulation.\n3. § 192.161 Supports and anchors.\n(b) Each exposed pipeline must have enough supports or anchors to protect the exposed pipe joints\nfrom the maximum end force caused by internal pressure and any additional forces caused by\ntemperature expansion or contraction or by the weight of the pipe and its contents.\nThe City failed on one (1) occasion to properly install supports under a section of exposed cast iron main\nlocated under the bridge at Pumpkin Creek and London Bridge Drive. Several of the installed supports\nwere not in contact with the cast iron main, and did not provide support to protect the exposed pipe joints\nfrom the weight of the cast iron pipe and its contents.\nThe VA SCC inspectors observed and photographed the section of the main referenced above.\n4. § 192.199 Requirements for design of pressure relief and limiting devices.\n(h) Except for a valve that will isolate the system under protection from its source of pressure, be\ndesigned to prevent unauthorized operation of any stop valve that will make the pressure relief\nvalve or pressure limiting device inoperative.\nThe City failed to install pipeline locks on valves that could allow the monitor regulator to be by-passed.\nThe City failed on two (2) occasions to prevent unauthorized operation of a valve that will make a\npressure limiting device (monitor regulator) inoperable at the Southland Regulator and Craighead Rd.\n(Farmers Market) Regulator Stations by not having a by-pass run valve locked and by not having the\ncontrol line valve handles removed.\nThe VA SCC inspectors observed and photographed regulator sets at the above mentioned locations with\nthe monitor regulator by-pass valve unlocked. The handles to the regulator control lines were removed\nbut the valves were unlocked in an unfenced area.\n5. § 192.707 Line markers for mains and transmission lines.\n(d) Marker warning. The following must be written legibly on a background of sharply contrasting\ncolor on each line marker:\n(1) The word “Warning,” “Caution,” or “Danger” followed by the words “Gas (or name of gas\ntransported) Pipeline” all of which, except for markers in heavily developed urban areas, must be\nin letters at least 1 inch (25 millimeters) high with1/4inch (6.4 millimeters) stroke.\nThe City failed to install pipeline markers that meet the requirements of the code. The City failed on two\n(2) occasions to have pipeline markers that met the requirements of this code. The pipeline markers did\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2012-0006\n10\nnot have the word \"Warning\", \"Caution\" or \"Danger\" and did not have the correct letter size at Sandy\nRiver Regulator Station and the Southland Drive Regulator Station.\nThe VA SCC observed and photographed regulator stations at the above mentioned locations that did not\nhave adequate markers with the correct letter size and did not have the word \"Warning\", \"Caution\" or\n\"Danger\" as stated in the code.\n6. § 192.805 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program. The program shall include\nprovisions to:\n(a) Identify covered tasks;\nThe City failed on one (1) occasion to adequately/fully identify, as a covered task, the maintenance and\ncalibration of telemetering equipment (use of an electrical or pneumatic apparatus for indicating,\nrecording or integrating the values of a variable quantity, and for transmitting the data to a distant point).\nThe equipment is used to monitor/transmit pipeline pressure readings in the pipeline system as stated in\nthe §192.741 requirement.\nPHMSA Eastern Region believes the maintenance of a telemeter meets the four part requirements of a\ncovered task as stated in §192.801 (b). Transducers are a “pipeline facility” as defined in\n§192.3. §192.741 requires charts or telemetry on systems supplied by more than one district regulator\nstation and requires the investigation of abnormally high or low pressures when indicated. Accurate\nreadings are required to ensure the pipeline was not over pressured during abnormally high pressure\nsituations. Over pressuring the system could affect the integrity of the pipeline.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per\nviolation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of violations.\nFor violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per\nviolation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations.\nThe Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the\nabove probable violation(s) and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of\n$80,000 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $40,000\n2 $40,000\nWarning Items\nWith respect to items 3, 4, 5, and 6 we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents\ninvolved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty assessment\nproceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these items. Be advised that failure to do so\nmay result in the City being subject to additional enforcement action.\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 1 and 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to the City of Danville, VA.\nPlease refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2012-0006\n11\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nCompliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be advised that\nall material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly\navailable. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment\nunder 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the\ndocument with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of\nwhy you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If\nyou do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to\ncontest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to\nfind facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nPlease submit all correspondence in this matter to Byron Coy, PE, Director, PHMSA Eastern Region, 820\nBear Tavern Road, Suite 103, W. Trenton, NJ 08628. Please refer to CPF 1-2012-0006 on each\ndocument you submit, and please whenever possible provide a signed PDF copy in electronic format.\nSmaller files may be emailed to Byron.Coy@dot.gov. Larger files should be sent on a CD accompanied\nby the original paper copy to the Eastern Region Office.\nSincerely,\nByron Coy, P.E.\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\nCc: Mr. James Hotinger, VA SCC\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2012-0006\n12\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to the City of Danville, Virginia (City) a Compliance\nOrder incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of the City\nwith the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. 4. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice, the City failed to coat a pipeline with a\nmaterial that is suitable for the prevention of atmospheric corrosion on an exposed\nmain under bridges at Piedmont Drive and the Sandy River. The City must\nremove the existing coating/primer, clean the pipeline surface, and apply a\ncoating suitable for the prevention of atmospheric corrosion, in accordance with\ncoating manufacturer’s procedures.\nIn regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice, the City failed to install pipeline\nmarkers near an above ground main that was accessible to the public at Pumpkin\nCreek Drive at the Pumpkin Creek Bridge, at the London Bridge Drive over the\nPumpkin Creek, and at the telemetry transmitter on the London Bridge Drive. The\nCity must install and maintain line markers along each section of a main and\nfeeder line that is located above ground in the area accessible to the public.\nThe City shall have 90 days from the receipt of a Final Order to complete the\nrequirements for Items 1 and 2 of the Proposed Compliance Order.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that the City of Danville, VA maintain\ndocumentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this\nCompliance Order and submit the total to Byron Coy, P.E., Director, Eastern\nRegion, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested\nthat these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost\nassociated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline\ninfrastructure.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2012-0006\n13\nAPPENDIX B\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2012-0006\n14\nWork Plan for the development and implementation of a plan for coating of exposed piping\nand a program for the control and monitoring of pipeline warning markers.\nCity of Danville, Virginia\nCPF 1-2012-0006\n1. Introduction\nThe U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) has allowed the City of Danville, Virginia (City), the opportunity to\nperform the following supplemental safety actions as an alternative to paying a proposed civil\npenalty for alleged violations of the pipeline safety regulations in 49 C.F.R. Part 192. The City\nis to perform these risk-mitigating actions relative to the violations, which improve the continued\nsafe operations of the natural gas distribution and provide value that offsets the proposed civil\npenalties. Should PHMSA determine that the proposed actions provide safety and/or\nenvironmental value beyond the enforcement of the civil penalty, the City will enter into a\nConsent Agreement with PHMSA to perform the proposed actions within agreed-upon time\nframes.\n2. General Information and Completed Remedial Actions\nPHMSA’s Notice of Probable Violation in CPF 1-2012-0006 identified six items of probable\nviolation and included proposed civil penalties for the first two items. The notice also included a\nProposed Compliance Order, requiring the City to take various remedial actions to correct the\nprobable violations. In Item 1, PHMSA alleged that the City failed to coat a pipeline with a\nmaterial suitable for the prevention of atmospheric corrosion, in violation of 49 C.F.R. §\n192.479(b). The probable violation was identified at one location at Piedmont Drive and the\nSandy River. Item 1 included a proposed civil penalty of $40,000. In Item 2, PHMSA alleged\nthat the City failed to install pipeline markers near a main that was accessible to the public, in\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(c). The probable violation was identified at three locations:\nPumpkin Creek Drive at the Pumpkin Creek Bridge, at London Bridge Drive over the Pumpkin\nCreek and at the telemetry transmitter on London Bridge Drive. Item 2 included a proposed civil\npenalty of $40,000, for a total proposed civil penalty of $80,000.\nWith respect to Item 1, the City has:\n1. 2. Reviewed and modified inspection and documentation procedures for pipeline\nsegments exposed to the atmosphere.\nDeveloped specifications and procured a qualified contractor to recoat the pipeline\nsegments identified in Notice of Probable Violation Item 1. Four (4) additional\nexposed pipeline segments were also coated.\nWith respect to Item 2, the City has:\n1. Reviewed all bridge crossings and telemetry stations and installed surface pipeline\nmarkers at both limits of all bridge-attached pipeline crossings and telemetry stations\nwhere needed. Adhesive pipeline markers were also attached to bridge-attached\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2012-0006\n15\npipeline segments where the City determined that the pipelines were accessible to the\npublic.\nAll of the work described above was completed by December 2013. The approximate cost to the\nCity for testing the existing coatings, the development of contract documents by a consulting\nengineer, compensating the coating contractor and inspector utilized during the coating process\nwas $230,800. City personnel labor costs during this process were not documented. Likewise,\nthe cost for identification of sites and installation of the surface and pipe-attached pipeline\nmarkers was also not documented because all of the work was performed by City personnel.\n3. Additional Proposed Actions\nThe City has reviewed potential remedial actions which could be performed by the City and used\nin the development of a Consent Agreement with PHMSA. Following consideration, it has been\ndetermined that the best remedial actions aligned with the probable violations are an acceleration\nof the coating maintenance for bridge-attached pipelines within the City's distribution system,\nwhere needed, and the development of a program to control and monitor pipeline warning marks.\nThe City proposes to complete coating remediation for two (2) natural gas pipeline segments\nattached to bridge structures.\nThe coating program is as follows:\n1. 2. Coat the 8-inch diameter, 129-foot-long casing pipe beneath a bridge crossing Fall\nCreek on US Route 58 East in Danville, Virginia. This casing contains an inserted 6-\ninch diameter polyethylene gas main.\nCoat the 8-inch diameter, 43-foot-long casing pipe beneath a bridge crossing\nPumpkin Creek on London Bridge drive in Danville, Virginia. This casing pipe\ncontains an inserted 4-inch diameter polyethylene gas main.\nThe City proposes to develop a structured program to control and monitor pipeline warning\nmarkers. Development and implementation of the program shall consist of the following:\n1. 2. A review of system mapping to determine locations where pipeline markers are\nwarranted. Typical locations are:\na. Railroad crossings\nb. Bridge attachments and other exposed crossings\nc. Underwater crossings\nd. Telemetry stations\ne. Pressure reducing stations\nf. Class 1 and Class 2 pipeline routes\ng. Other locations as required.\nConfirmation and documentation of all existing pipeline warning markers. This will\ninclude verification of installed pipeline warning markers at locations determined in\nthe preceding section (1). All existing pipeline warning markers will be reviewed and\ndocumented for marker content, O&M compliance and condition. GPS locations will\nalso be collected for each existing marker.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2012-0006\n16\n3. 4. 5. Installation of markers at locations identified during work under section (1) above and\nnot located during work performed under section (2) above. Documentation and\nlocation information described in section 2 above will be collected for each newly-\ninstalled marker.\nDevelopment of digital mapping for all system pipeline warning markers. GPS data\npreviously collected will be utilized to develop a mapping system for all pipeline\nmarkers within the City's natural gas distribution system.\nIncorporate scheduled monitoring of the pipeline warning markers into the City's\ncontinuing surveillance and damage prevention programs.\n4. Project Schedule\nThe schedules for the proposed work in this Work Plan have been developed based on\nconsideration of availability of funding and weather.\nCoating Program\nEstimated schedule:\nPreparation of specifications and bidding: Execution of work: April 2015 through August 2015\nAugust 2015 through September 2015\nPipeline Warning Marker Control and Monitoring Program\nEstimated schedule:\nReview of existing system: Confirmation and documentation of existing marker: Installation and documentation of new markers: Development of database: Development of marker mapping: Monitoring of markers: July 2016 through August 2016\nAugust 2016 through October 2016\nNovember 2016 through December 2016\nAugust 2016 through December 2016\nDecember 2016 through January 2017\nOngoing annually beginning 2017\n5. Estimated Project Costs\nThe estimated cost for work associated with the Coating Program includes:\nDevelopment of Coating Program Specifications and Contract Documents\nConsultant (RK&K) $10,170\nCity Personnel $720\nSubtotal Estimated Cost $10,890\nBidding and Contractual Agreement\nConsultant (RK&K) $7,830\nCity Personnel $720\nSubtotal Estimated Cost $8,550\nExecution of Work (BGL Asset Services) $42,114.36\nSubtotal Cost $42,114.36\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2012-0006\n17\nTotal Estimated Cost\n$61,554.36\nThe estimated cost for work associated with the development and implementation of a Pipeline\nWarning Marker Control and Monitoring Program includes:\nReview of existing system (identification of probable marker locations)\nConsultant (RK&K)\n$2,500\nCity Personnel\n$5,700\nSubtotal Estimated Cost\n$8,200\nConfirmation and documentation of existing markers\nConsultant (RK&K)\n$6,730\nCity Personnel\n$5,700\nSubtotal Estimated Cost\n$12,430\nInstallation and documentation of new markers\nConsultant (RK&K)\nCity Personnel\n$4,500\n$3,660\nSubtotal Estimated Cost\n$8,160\nDevelopment of database\nCity Personnel\n$2,040\nSubtotal Estimated Cost\n$2,040\nDevelopment of mapping\nCity Personnel\n$3,240\nSubtotal Estimated Cost\n$3,240\nTotal Estimated Cost**\n$34,070\n**Estimated costs do not include cost for ongoing monitoring\nTotal costs for consultation work available on request\nThe total estimated cost for both projects is:\nCoating Program\n$61,554.36\nPipeline Warning Marker Control and Monitoring Program\n$34,070\nTOTAL COST OF ADDITIONAL WORK\n$87,504.36\n\n120120006_Closure Letter_05192017_text.pdf\n\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY\nMay 19, 2017\nKelly P. Kinnett, P.E.\nWater and Gas Director\nCity of Danville\n1040 Monument Street\nDanville, VA 24540\nCPF 1-2012-0006\nDear Mr. Kinnett:\nOn July 19, 2016, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued\nto the City of Danville (City) a Consent Agreement and Order in the above-referenced case. Based\non our review of the documentation the City provided, it has been determined that the City has\ncomplied with the terms of the Consent Agreement and Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nRobert Burrough\nActing Director, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Mr. Massoud Tahamtani, VA SCC\nMr. Drew Eaken, VA SCC","truncated":false,"body_characters":37245}