{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120130009","title":"DANVILLE, CITY OF — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-12-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.605(a), 192.725(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120130009.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120130009.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120130009","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120130009","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving DANVILLE, CITY OF. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.605(a),  192.725(b). The case was opened on 2013-12-23 and is reported as closed as of 2017-05-19. Proposed civil penalty: $55,400. Assessed civil penalty: $0. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120130009_Closure Letter_05192017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120130009/120130009_Closure%20Letter_05192017.pdf\n\n120130009_Closure Letter_05192017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120130009/120130009_Closure%20Letter_05192017_text.pdf\n\n120130009_Consent Agreement and Order_07192016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120130009/120130009_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_07192016.pdf\n\n120130009_Consent Agreement and Order_07192016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120130009/120130009_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_07192016_text.pdf\n\n120130009_NOPV PCP PCO_12232013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120130009/120130009_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_12232013.pdf\n\n120130009_NOPV PCP PCO_12232013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120130009/120130009_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_12232013_text.pdf\n\n120130009_Operator Response and Request for Hearing_01232014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120130009/120130009_Operator%20Response%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing_01232014.pdf\n\n120130009_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. 1-2013-0009\na municipal corporation, )\nRespondent. )\n)\n)\n)\n)\nCONSENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER\nBetween March 19 and March 22, 2012, 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 of Danville or Respondent) pipeline facilities in\nDanville, Virginia. The City’s pipeline facilities consist of approximately 359 miles of\ndistribution mains, 26 district regulators to supply gas at necessary pressures, and gas-storage\ncapacity.\nAs a result of this inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety (Director),\nissued to Respondent, by letter dated December 23, 2013, 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 two violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192, assessing a total civil penalty of\n$55,400 for the violations; and requiring the City to take various remedial actions to correct the\nsecond violation.\nThe City responded to the Notice by letter dated January 23, 2014 (Response), and requested a\nhearing, which was held on September 11, 2014. Respondent has proposed, as part of this\nproceeding and two unrelated enforcement actions, CPF No. 1-2012-0006 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 administrative\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2013-0009\n2\norders issued thereunder. As used in this Consent Agreement and Order (Agreement), the terms\n“pipeline system” and “pipeline facility” shall be defined as in 49 C.F.R. Part 192. Respondent\nacknowledges that it received proper notice of PHMSA’s action in this proceeding and that the\nNotice states claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60101, et seq., and\nthe 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, and\nthe Parties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements, or understandings relating\nto the settlement other than those expressly contained in this Agreement and its appendices.\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 set\nforth in the Proposed Compliance Order and that the Parties will have all their respective rights\nand responsibilities under the terms set forth in the Proposed Compliance Order and under\n49 C.F.R. Part 190 relating to the implementation and enforcement of that Proposed Compliance\nOrder.\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. 1-2013-0009\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, and\nin all work plans and schedules incorporated thereunder, are not required by any federal, state, or\nlocal law or regulation and do not include actions which Respondent would likely be required to\nperform:\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, incorporated\nherein as Appendix B to this Agreement. Respondent will complete the actions described in Part\n2 of the Work Plan (General Information and Completed Remedial Actions) and will adhere to\nthe schedule set forth in Part 3 of the 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 timely,\nwritten request that demonstrates both good cause for an extension and provides sufficient detail\nto enable the Director to evaluate Respondent’s request.\n15. Respondent agrees to maintain documentation of the costs associated with\nimplementation of the Work Plan and agrees to make this information available to PHMSA upon\nrequest.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2013-0009\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:\n(a) approve, 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 to\ntake all actions required by the submission as modified by the Director, subject to Respondent’s\nright to invoke the procedures in Section D (Dispute Resolution) with respect to any conditions\nidentified by the Director. In the event that the Director does not approve all or any portion of a\nsubmission, the Director will provide the City with a written notice of the deficiencies.\nRespondent will correct all deficiencies within the time specified by the Director and resubmit it\nfor acceptance. If Respondent fails to correct the specified deficiencies, the Director may invoke\nthe 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 the\ndispute 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.\nF. Civil Penalties.\n19. PHMSA agrees to withdraw the two civil penalties, proposed in the Notice, in\nexchange for completion of the Project Schedule outlined in Part 3 of the Work Plan.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2013-0009\n5\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 right\nto take further enforcement action, including assessment of the civil penalties proposed in the\nNotice.\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 transaction\nthat is funding or could fund the same activities described in this Agreement, and has been\ninformed 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 by\nthe Director. Respondent may request, and PHMSA will provide, written confirmation of the\ntermination of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement prevents Respondent from completing any\nof the obligations earlier than the deadlines provided for herein.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2013-0009\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. 1-2013-0009\n7\nAPPENDIX A\n\n\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS MAIL\nDecember 23, 2013\nMr. Steve Saum, Dir. Of Utilities\nCity of Danville, VA\n1040 Monument St.\nDanville, VA 24541\nCPF 1-2013-0009\nDear Mr. Saum:\nOn March 19 through 22, 2012, an inspector from the Virginia State Corporation Commission (VA SCC)\nacting as Agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to\nChapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected the City of Danville’s (City) pipeline facilities in\nDanville, 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. § 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of written\nprocedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency response.\nFor transmission lines, the manual must also include procedures for handling abnormal\noperations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. This manual must be prepared\nbefore operations of a pipeline system commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be\nkept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nThe City of Danville (City) failed to follow City procedure, Chapter 2, Part G-6, Table II.G-6.1\nTitled Grade 1 Leaks. The procedure provides action criteria for Grade 1 leaks. It states that any\ngas above 80% LEL in a confined space, or 80% LEL or greater in a small substructure from\nwhich gas would likely migrate to the outside wall of a building is a Class 1 leak.\nDuring an inspection of the City’s leak records, the VASCC inspector discovered that a leak at\n164 Martin Avenue was called in at 12:02 pm, on 09/03/2011.\na. The leak, according to Work Order ID 106346, was a Class 2\n\n\n\n1-2013-0009\nb. c. d. The field notes indicated that City personnel found 11% gas in air in a manhole\nTypically, natural gas has an LEL of 4-5%, and an 80% LEL equates to approximately 4% gas in\nair.\nSince the 11% gas in air measurement found in the manhole exceeded the 4% criteria specified in\nthe City’s procedures, the leak should have been classified as a Class 1 leak. This was not done.\nTherefore, the City failed to follow their procedure for classifying leaks.\nDuring an exit interview with the City, no explanation was offered to address the VA SCC inspector\nconcerns. The repairs were documented as being completed on 09/07/2011.\n2. § 192.725 Test requirements for reinstating service lines\n(b) Each service line temporarily disconnected from the main must be tested from the point of\ndisconnection to the service line valve in the same manner as a new service line, before\nreconnecting. However, if provisions are made to maintain continuous service, such as by\ninstallation of a bypass, any part of the original service line used to maintain continuous\nservice need not be tested.\nThe City of Danville (City) failed to test each service line temporarily disconnected from the main from\nthe point of disconnection to the service line valve, in the same manner as a new service line, before\nreconnecting.\nDuring an inspection of the City’s leak records, the VASCC inspector discovered that the City failed\nto pressure test service lines from the point of disconnection to the service line valve connection on 12\noccasions. The records indicate that repairs were made to the service lines and the lines were soap tested\nat the point of repair prior to returning them to service. The City could not produce records to show that a\npressure test was performed on the lines prior to their return to service.\nThe VASCC inspector observed records stating “soap test” as the only test performed after repairing a\ndamaged service line at the following locations and dates:\n1. WO 106170 29 Old Farm Road 8/24/2011\n2. WO 104324 Piney Forest and Deer Run Road 6/14/2011\n3. WO 106634 543 Rosemary Lane 9/14/2011\n4. 151 Tollives Place 9/26/2011\n5. WO 101821 449 Winstead Drive 3/22/2011\n6. WO 105647 111 Winston Court 8/4/2011\n7. WO 100383 159 Kirkwood Drive12/29/2011\n8. WO 103064 Kings Court and Princess Drive 5/5/2011\n9. WO 101313 100 Joanis Drive 2/18/2011\n10. WO 104505 131 James Road 6/22/2011\n11. WO 106178 Colquhoun Street and Craighead Street 8/25/2011\n12. WO 108288 319 Girard Street 12/4/2011.\nDuring an exit interview with the City, no explanation was offered to address the VA SCC inspector’s\nconcerns. The City stated that the operator used pretested pipe in the repair.\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\n\n\n\n1-2013-0009\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 violations and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of\n$55,400 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $25,900\n2 $29,500\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to Item 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to City of Danville, VA. Please refer to the\nProposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.\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. All material you\nsubmit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you believe that any\nportion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with\nthe complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you\nbelieve qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted\ninformation qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30\ndays of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this\nNotice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 1-2013-0009, and for each document you\nsubmit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible, and please whenever possible\nprovide a signed PDF copy in electronic format. Smaller files may be emailed to Byron.Coy@dot.gov.\nLarger files should be sent on a CD accompanied by the original paper copy to the Eastern Region Office.\nAdditionally, if you choose to respond to this (or any other case), please ensure that any response letter\npertains solely to one CPF case number.\nSincerely,\nByron Coy, PE\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nCc: James Hotinger VA SCC\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n\n\n\n1-2013-0009\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA) proposes to issue to City of Danville, Virginia (City) a Compliance Order incorporating the\nfollowing remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of City with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to the City’s failure to test each\nservice line temporarily disconnected from the main from the point of disconnection to\nthe service line valve, the City must amend its procedures regarding pressure testing to\naddress this requirement.\nThe City shall have 60 days from the receipt of a Final Order to complete the\nrequirements for Item Number 2 of the Notice.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that the City maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total\nto Byron Coy, PE, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost\nassociated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2)\ntotal cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline\ninfrastructure.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2013-0009\n8\nAPPENDIX B\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2013-0009\n9\nWork Plan for the personnel training related to\nleak classification and service line repairs and testing.\nCity of Danville, Virginia\nCPF 1-2013-0009\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\nNotice of Probable Violation, Item 1\nPHMSA’s Notice of Probable Violation in CPF 1-2012-0009 identified two items of probable\nviolation and included proposed civil penalties for both 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 follow City procedure for\nclassifying leaks, in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a). The probable violation was identified\nfrom a leak at 164 Martin Avenue that was improperly classified as a Class 2 leak, while the\nrecords and criteria indicate that it was a Class 1 leak. Item 1 included a proposed civil penalty\nof $25,900.\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 action aligned with the probable violation is training of\npersonnel by outside subject matter experts.\nThe City has contacted Heath Consultants, headquartered in Houston, Texas, to develop and\nimplement an on-site training program for responding to natural gas leaks and grading leaks\nfound. The training program will be based on the leak investigation and leak grading procedures\nfound in the City's Operations and Maintenance (O&M) plan. All of the City’s Water and Gas\nEngineering Department personnel who are responsible for responding to natural gas leaks will\nbe included in the training program. All content of the training program, as well as attendance\nfor the training program, will be documented by the Water and Gas Engineering Department.\nThe City is reviewing available training topics for consideration of additional formal O&M\nrelated training opportunities.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2013-0009\n10\nNotice of Probable Violation, Item 2\nIn Item 2, PHMSA alleged that the City failed to test each service line temporarily disconnected\nfrom the main from the point of disconnection to the service line valve in the same manner as a\nnew service line, before reconnecting. The probable violation was identified at 12 locations:\n1. WO 106170 29 Old Farm Road 8/24/2011\n2. WO 104324 Piney Forest and Deer Run Road 6/14/2011\n3. WO 106634 543 Rosemary Lane 9/14/2011\n4. 151 Tollives Place 9/26/2011\n5. WO 101821 449 Winstead Drive 3/22/2011\n6. WO 105647 111 Winston Court 8/4/2011\n7. WO 100383 159 Kirkwood Drive12/29/2011\n8. WO 103064 Kings Court and Princess Drive 5/5/2011\n9. WO 101313 100 Joanis Drive 2/18/2011\n10. WO 104505 131 James Road 6/22/2011\n11. WO 106178 Colquhoun Street and Craighead Street 8/25/2011\n12. WO 108288 319 Girard Street 12/4/2011\nItem 2 included a proposed civil penalty of $29,500. The total proposed civil penalty for both\nitems is $55,400.\nThe City has reviewed potential remedial actions which could be performed by the City and used\nin a Consent Agreement with PHMSA. Following consideration, it has been determined that the\nbest remedial action aligned with the probable violation is training of personnel. The City has\nalready completed the requirements of the Proposed Compliance Order.\nThe City's Water and Gas Engineering Department shall be responsible for developing and\nimplementing a training program in accordance with the revised testing procedures for repairing\nnatural gas services and general test procedures for all new and repaired pipeline segments. The\nCity may expand this training program to include various O&M-related topics. It is anticipated\nthat the initial two-day training program shall consist of classroom education. The Water and\nGas Engineering Department shall also be responsible for reviewing the City's Operator\nQualification (OQ) plan for pressure and leak testing to determine compliance with the City’s\nO&M plan and modifying the plan, as required. The Water and Gas Engineering Department\nwill also review the requalification period for the OQ task to determine if more frequent\nrequalification is required. All of the City’s Water and Gas Engineering Department personnel\nwho are responsible for either construction and maintenance of pipeline segments or providing\nengineering and inspection services will be included in the training program. This is expected to\ninclude approximately 40 persons.\nAll content of the training program, revisions to the City's OQ plan, and attendance for the\ntraining program will be documented by the City’s Water and Gas Engineering Department.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2013-0009\n11\n3.\nProject Schedule\nItem 1\nTiming for the development of the training program and implementation of the training program\nare largely dependent on the consultant, Heath Consultants. It is anticipated that the consultants,\nin cooperation with the City's Water and Gas Engineering Department, can develop a training\nprogram within 90 days and provide two days of on-site training within 30 days thereafter.\nEstimated Schedule**:\nTraining Program Development:\nJuly 1, 2016 through September 30, 2016\nOn-Site Training:\nOctober 1, 2016 through November 30, 2016\n** The City plans to compress the schedule for training program development and\nimplementation and the City reserves the right to adjust the actual schedule to accommodate this\ngoal.\nItem 2\nThe City expects to compress timing for development of a training program and review and\nmodification of the O&M plan and OQ plan to accommodate this Project Schedule, since all\nwork is being performed by City personnel.\nEstimated Schedule**:\nReview and Revision of OQ Plan: July 1, 2016 through August 31, 2016\nTraining Program Development:\nSeptember 1, 2016 through September 30, 2016\nOn-Site Training:\nOctober 1, 2016 through November 30, 2016\nPersonnel OQ Requalification:\nOctober 1, 2016 through November 30, 2016\n** The City plans to compress the schedule for the training program development and\nimplementation and the City reserves the right to adjust the actual schedule to accommodate this\ngoal.\nEstimated Project Costs\nThe estimated cost for work associated with Item 1 includes:\nAdministration and coordination of training with Heath Consultants\n$8,000\nConsultant's Labor\n$2,400\nConsultant's Travel Expenses\nAirfare\n$670\nVehicle Rental\n$280\nLodging\n$500\nMeals\n$390\nCity Personnel Training\nLabor\n$11,520\nMeals\n$500\nSubtotal Estimated Cost\n$24,260\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2013-0009\n12\nThe estimated cost for work associated with Item 2 includes:\nTraining Program Development $4,930\nAssociated Operator Qualification Training Modules\nReview $2,250\nModification $4,950\nCity Personnel Training\nLabor $11,520\nMeals $500\nSubtotal Estimated Cost $24,150\nTotal Estimated Cost $48,410\n\n120130009_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 1-2013-0009\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\n\n120130009_NOPV PCP PCO_12232013_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department Of Transportation Pipeline and 609.989.2171\nHazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103\nWest Trenton, NJ 08628\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS MAIL\nDecember 23, 2013\nMr. Steve Saum, Dir. Of Utilities\nCity of Danville, VA\n1040 Monument St.\nDanville, VA 24541\nCPF 1-2013-0009\nDear Mr. Saum:\nOn March 19 through 22, 2012, an inspector from the Virginia State Corporation Commission (VA SCC)\nacting as Agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to\nChapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected the City of Danville’s (City) pipeline facilities in Danville,\nVA.\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. § 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of written\nprocedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency response.\nFor transmission lines, the manual must also include procedures for handling abnormal\noperations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. This manual must be prepared before\noperations of a pipeline system commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at\nlocations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nThe City of Danville (City) failed to follow City procedure, Chapter 2, Part G-6, Table II.G-6.1 Titled Grade\n1 Leaks. The procedure provides action criteria for Grade 1 leaks. It states that any gas above 80% LEL in a\nconfined space, or 80% LEL or greater in a small substructure from which gas would likely migrate to the\noutside wall of a building is a Class 1 leak.\nDuring an inspection of the City’s leak records, the VASCC inspector discovered that a leak at 164 Martin\nAvenue was called in at 12:02 pm, on 09/03/2011.\na. The leak, according to Work Order ID 106346, was a Class 2\n\n\n\n1-2013-0009\nb. c. d. The field notes indicated that City personnel found 11% gas in air in a manhole\nTypically, natural gas has an LEL of 4-5%, and an 80% LEL equates to approximately 4% gas\nin air.\nSince the 11% gas in air measurement found in the manhole exceeded the 4% criteria\nspecified in the City’s procedures, the leak should have been classified as a Class 1 leak. This\nwas not done.\nTherefore, the City failed to follow their procedure for classifying leaks.\nDuring an exit interview with the City, no explanation was offered to address the VA SCC inspector\nconcerns. The repairs were documented as being completed on 09/07/2011.\n2. § 192.725 Test requirements for reinstating service lines\n(b) Each service line temporarily disconnected from the main must be tested from the point of\ndisconnection to the service line valve in the same manner as a new service line, before\nreconnecting. However, if provisions are made to maintain continuous service, such as by\ninstallation of a bypass, any part of the original service line used to maintain continuous service\nneed not be tested.\nThe City of Danville (City) failed to test each service line temporarily disconnected from the main from the\npoint of disconnection to the service line valve, in the same manner as a new service line, before\nreconnecting.\nDuring an inspection of the City’s leak records, the VASCC inspector discovered that the City failed\nto pressure test service lines from the point of disconnection to the service line valve connection on 12\noccasions. The records indicate that repairs were made to the service lines and the lines were soap tested at\nthe point of repair prior to returning them to service. The City could not produce records to show that a\npressure test was performed on the lines prior to their return to service.\nThe VASCC inspector observed records stating “soap test” as the only test performed after repairing a\ndamaged service line at the following locations and dates:\n1. WO 106170 29 Old Farm Road 8/24/2011\n2. WO 104324 Piney Forest and Deer Run Road 6/14/2011\n3. WO 106634 543 Rosemary Lane 9/14/2011\n4. 151 Tollives Place 9/26/2011\n5. WO 101821 449 Winstead Drive 3/22/2011\n6. WO 105647 111 Winston Court 8/4/2011\n7. WO 100383 159 Kirkwood Drive12/29/2011\n8. WO 103064 Kings Court and Princess Drive 5/5/2011\n9. WO 101313 100 Joanis Drive 2/18/2011\n10. WO 104505 131 James Road 6/22/2011\n11. WO 106178 Colquhoun Street and Craighead Street 8/25/2011\n12. WO 108288 319 Girard Street 12/4/2011.\nDuring an exit interview with the City, no explanation was offered to address the VA SCC inspector’s\nconcerns. The City stated that the operator used pretested pipe in the repair.\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. For\nviolations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation\n120130009_NOPV_PCP_PCO_12232013 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n1-2013-0009\nper day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations. The\nCompliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above\nprobable violations and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $55,400 as\nfollows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $25,900\n2 $29,500\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to Item 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to City of Danville, VA. Please refer to the\nProposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.\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. All material you\nsubmit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you believe that any\nportion of your respon","truncated":true,"body_characters":42838}