# DANVILLE, CITY OF — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

120130009_Closure Letter_05192017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120130009/120130009_Closure%20Letter_05192017.pdf

120130009_Closure Letter_05192017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120130009/120130009_Closure%20Letter_05192017_text.pdf

120130009_Consent Agreement and Order_07192016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120130009/120130009_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_07192016.pdf

120130009_Consent Agreement and Order_07192016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120130009/120130009_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_07192016_text.pdf

120130009_NOPV PCP PCO_12232013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120130009/120130009_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_12232013.pdf

120130009_NOPV PCP PCO_12232013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120130009/120130009_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_12232013_text.pdf

120130009_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

120130009_Consent Agreement and Order_07192016_text.pdf

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, DC 20590
In the Matter of )
City of Danville, Virginia, ) CPF No. 1-2013-0009
a municipal corporation, )
Respondent. )
)
)
)
)
CONSENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER
Between March 19 and March 22, 2012, pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code,
inspectors from the Virginia State Corporation Commission (VA SCC), acting as agents for the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), inspected the City of Danville’s (City of Danville or Respondent) pipeline facilities in
Danville, Virginia. The City’s pipeline facilities consist of approximately 359 miles of
distribution mains, 26 district regulators to supply gas at necessary pressures, and gas-storage
capacity.
As a result of this inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety (Director),
issued to Respondent, by letter dated December 23, 2013, a Notice of Probable Violation,
Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), a copy of which is attached
hereto as Appendix A. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that
Respondent had committed two violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192, assessing a total civil penalty of
$55,400 for the violations; and requiring the City to take various remedial actions to correct the
second violation.
The City responded to the Notice by letter dated January 23, 2014 (Response), and requested a
hearing, which was held on September 11, 2014. Respondent has proposed, as part of this
proceeding and two unrelated enforcement actions, CPF No. 1-2012-0006 and CPF No. 1-2013-
0010, to resolve these matters via administrative consent agreements.
Having agreed that settlement of this proceeding will avoid further administrative proceedings or
litigation, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 190, and upon consent and agreement of Respondent and
PHMSA (collectively, the Parties), the Parties hereby agree as follows:
A. General Provisions.
1. Respondent acknowledges that its pipeline system is subject to the jurisdiction of
the federal Pipeline Safety Laws, 49 U.S.C. 60101, et seq., and the regulations and administrative



CPF No. 1-2013-0009
2
orders issued thereunder. As used in this Consent Agreement and Order (Agreement), the terms
“pipeline system” and “pipeline facility” shall be defined as in 49 C.F.R. Part 192. Respondent
acknowledges that it received proper notice of PHMSA’s action in this proceeding and that the
Notice states claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60101, et seq., and
the regulations and orders issued thereunder.
2. Respondent consents to the issuance of this Agreement and hereby waives any
further procedural requirements with respect to its issuance. Respondent waives all rights to
contest the adequacy of notice or the validity of this Agreement, including all rights to
administrative or judicial hearings, reviews, or appeals.
3. This Agreement shall apply to and be binding upon PHMSA and Respondent, its
officers, directors, and employees, and its successors, assigns, or other entities or persons
otherwise bound by law. Respondent agrees to provide a copy of this Agreement and any
incorporated work plans and schedules to all City officers, employees, agents, and successors-in-
interest whose duties might reasonably include compliance with this Agreement.
4. This Agreement constitutes the final, complete, and exclusive agreement and
understanding between the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in this Agreement, and
the Parties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements, or understandings relating
to the settlement other than those expressly contained in this Agreement and its appendices.
5. Nothing in this Agreement affects or relieves the City of its responsibility to
comply with all applicable requirements of the federal Pipeline Safety Laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101,
et seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. Nothing in this Agreement alters
PHMSA’s right of access, entry, inspection, and information-gathering or its authority to bring
any enforcement action against Respondent pursuant to the federal Pipeline Safety Laws, the
regulations and orders issued thereunder, or any other provision of federal or state law.
6. This Agreement does not waive or modify any federal, state, or local laws or
regulations that are applicable to the City or its pipeline system. This Agreement is not a permit,
or a modification of any permit, under any federal, state, or local laws or regulations.
Respondent remains responsible for achieving and maintaining compliance with all applicable
federal, state, and local laws, regulations and permits.
7. This Agreement neither affects the terms of the Proposed Compliance Order
contained in the Notice, attached hereto as Appendix A, nor relieves Respondent from its
responsibility to complete the remedial actions described therein. Except as expressly provided
under this Agreement, the Parties agree that the City will perform all of the corrective actions set
forth in the Proposed Compliance Order and that the Parties will have all their respective rights
and responsibilities under the terms set forth in the Proposed Compliance Order and under
49 C.F.R. Part 190 relating to the implementation and enforcement of that Proposed Compliance
Order.
8. This Agreement does not create rights in, or grant any cause of action to, any third
party not a party to this Agreement. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is not liable
for any injuries or damages to persons or property arising from acts or omissions of Respondent



CPF No. 1-2013-0009
3
or its officers, employees, agents, or successors-in-interest in carrying out the work required by
this Agreement. The City agrees to hold harmless DOT, its officers, employees, agents, and
representatives from any and all causes of action arising from any acts or omissions of
Respondent or its contractors in carrying out the work required by this Agreement.
9. The Parties agree that the facts as alleged in each item of the Notice are true and
correct and that each item may be considered by PHMSA to be a prior offense in any future
PHMSA enforcement action taken against the City.
10. Respondent agrees to complete the corrective actions specified in Section B
(Additional Work to be Performed) of this Agreement.
11. Respondent agrees that the activities described in Section B of this Agreement, and
in all work plans and schedules incorporated thereunder, are not required by any federal, state, or
local law or regulation and do not include actions which Respondent would likely be required to
perform:
a. b. c. d. e. under the Proposed Compliance Order contained in the Notice;
as injunctive relief, including as a mitigation project, in the instant case;
as injunctive relief in any other existing legal action initiated by PHMSA or
any other regulatory agency against Respondent;
as part of an existing settlement or order in another legal action; or
under any other federal, state, or local requirement.
B. Additional Work to be Performed.
12. Respondent agrees to perform the actions set forth in the Work Plan, incorporated
herein as Appendix B to this Agreement. Respondent will complete the actions described in Part
2 of the Work Plan (General Information and Completed Remedial Actions) and will adhere to
the schedule set forth in Part 3 of the Work Plan (Project Schedule).
13. Respondent agrees to revise the Work Plan as necessary to incorporate new
information obtained during the evaluations and remedial activities performed under the Work
Plan. Respondent shall submit any such plan revisions to the Director for prior approval. The
Director may approve Work Plan revision elements incrementally.
14. The Director may grant an extension of time for completion of any of the work to
be performed under this Section B (Additional Work to be Performed) upon Respondent’s timely,
written request that demonstrates both good cause for an extension and provides sufficient detail
to enable the Director to evaluate Respondent’s request.
15. Respondent agrees to maintain documentation of the costs associated with
implementation of the Work Plan and agrees to make this information available to PHMSA upon
request.



CPF No. 1-2013-0009
4
C. Review and Approval Process.
16. With respect to any submission by the City under Section B (Additional Work to
be Performed) of this Agreement that requires the approval of the Director, the Director may:
(a) approve, in whole or in part, the submission; (b) disapprove the submission on specified
conditions; (c) disapprove, in whole or in part, the submission; or (d) any combination of the
foregoing. In the event of approval in whole, in part, or upon conditions, the City will proceed to
take all actions required by the submission as modified by the Director, subject to Respondent’s
right to invoke the procedures in Section D (Dispute Resolution) with respect to any conditions
identified by the Director. In the event that the Director does not approve all or any portion of a
submission, the Director will provide the City with a written notice of the deficiencies.
Respondent will correct all deficiencies within the time specified by the Director and resubmit it
for acceptance. If Respondent fails to correct the specified deficiencies, the Director may invoke
the dispute resolution process provided in Section D below.
D. Dispute Resolution.
17. Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph 7 above, the Director and
Respondent will attempt to informally resolve any disputes arising under this Agreement. If the
City and the Director are unable to informally resolve the dispute within 15 business days,
Respondent may request in writing, within 10 business days, a written determination resolving the
dispute by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA. Along with its request,
Respondent will provide the Associate Administrator with all information Respondent believes
is relevant to the dispute. If the request is submitted as provided herein, the Associate
Administrator will issue a written determination that shall constitute final agency action. The
existence of a dispute and PHMSA’s consideration of matters placed in dispute shall not excuse,
toll, or suspend any term or timeframe for completion of any work to be performed under this
Agreement during the pendency of the dispute resolution process, except as agreed by the
Regional Director or the Associate Administrator in writing.
E. Enforcement.
18. This Agreement, including all plans and schedules incorporated by reference, is
subject to all enforcement authorities available to PHMSA under 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and
49 C.F.R. Part 190, including administrative civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, of up to
$200,000 per violation for each day the violation continues and referral of the case to the
Attorney General for judicial enforcement, if PHMSA determines that Respondent is not
complying with the terms of this Agreement in accordance with determinations made by the
Director, or if appealed, in accordance with decisions of the Associate Administrator. All other
work plans and associated schedules developed under Section B shall be automatically
incorporated into this Agreement and are enforceable in the same manner.
F. Civil Penalties.
19. PHMSA agrees to withdraw the two civil penalties, proposed in the Notice, in
exchange for completion of the Project Schedule outlined in Part 3 of the Work Plan.



CPF No. 1-2013-0009
5
20. If the Work Plan is not implemented within the timeframe contemplated in the
Project Schedule, subject to any extensions approved by the Director, PHMSA reserves the right
to take further enforcement action, including assessment of the civil penalties proposed in the
Notice.
G. Miscellaneous.
21. Respondent agrees to maintain records demonstrating compliance with all
requirements of this Agreement for a period of at least five years following completion of all
work to be performed. PHMSA and the VA SCC will have the right to inspect the records and
facilities of the City, or any contractor, agent, or successor-in-interest thereof, upon reasonable
notice, to confirm that the compliance terms of this Agreement are being undertaken in
conformity with the terms of this Agreement.
22. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement may be modified only by the
mutual agreement of the Parties as set forth in writing and signed by the Parties.
23. Each undersigned representative of the Parties certifies that he is fully authorized
by the party represented to enter into the terms and conditions hereof and to execute and legally
bind that party to it.
24. Respondent certifies that it is not a party to any open federal financial assistance
transaction that is funding or could fund the same activities described in this Agreement,
including all activities described in the Work Plan or any other incorporated plan or schedule.
Respondent further certifies that it has inquired of City departments and of any parties acting on
the behalf of the City whether they are a party to any open federal financial assistance transaction
that is funding or could fund the same activities described in this Agreement, and has been
informed by said parties that they are not subject to such a transaction.
H. Effective Date and Term.
25. The “Effective Date,” as used herein, is the date on which this Agreement is
signed by both Respondent and PHMSA. Unless otherwise specified, all deadlines for actions
required by the Agreement run from the Effective Date.
I. Termination.
26. This Agreement will terminate upon the completion of all terms set forth in the
Proposed Compliance Order and Section B (Additional Work to Be Performed), as determined by
the Director. Respondent may request, and PHMSA will provide, written confirmation of the
termination of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement prevents Respondent from completing any
of the obligations earlier than the deadlines provided for herein.



CPF No. 1-2013-0009
6
The Parties hereby agree to all conditions and terms of this Agreement:
For PHMSA: For City of Danville, Virginia:
_______________________________ _________________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Name: ___________________________
Acting Associate Administrator for Title: ___________________________
Pipeline Safety, PHMSA City of Danville, Virginia



CPF No. 1-2013-0009
7
APPENDIX A



NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
OVERNIGHT EXPRESS MAIL
December 23, 2013
Mr. Steve Saum, Dir. Of Utilities
City of Danville, VA
1040 Monument St.
Danville, VA 24541
CPF 1-2013-0009
Dear Mr. Saum:
On March 19 through 22, 2012, an inspector from the Virginia State Corporation Commission (VA SCC)
acting as Agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to
Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected the City of Danville’s (City) pipeline facilities in
Danville, VA.
As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety
Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violations are:
1. § 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of written
procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency response.
For transmission lines, the manual must also include procedures for handling abnormal
operations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not
exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. This manual must be prepared
before operations of a pipeline system commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be
kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted.
The City of Danville (City) failed to follow City procedure, Chapter 2, Part G-6, Table II.G-6.1
Titled Grade 1 Leaks. The procedure provides action criteria for Grade 1 leaks. It states that any
gas above 80% LEL in a confined space, or 80% LEL or greater in a small substructure from
which gas would likely migrate to the outside wall of a building is a Class 1 leak.
During an inspection of the City’s leak records, the VASCC inspector discovered that a leak at
164 Martin Avenue was called in at 12:02 pm, on 09/03/2011.
a. The leak, according to Work Order ID 106346, was a Class 2



1-2013-0009
b. c. d. The field notes indicated that City personnel found 11% gas in air in a manhole
Typically, natural gas has an LEL of 4-5%, and an 80% LEL equates to approximately 4% gas in
air.
Since the 11% gas in air measurement found in the manhole exceeded the 4% criteria specified in
the City’s procedures, the leak should have been classified as a Class 1 leak. This was not done.
Therefore, the City failed to follow their procedure for classifying leaks.
During an exit interview with the City, no explanation was offered to address the VA SCC inspector
concerns. The repairs were documented as being completed on 09/07/2011.
2. § 192.725 Test requirements for reinstating service lines
(b) Each service line temporarily disconnected from the main must be tested from the point of
disconnection to the service line valve in the same manner as a new service line, before
reconnecting. However, if provisions are made to maintain continuous service, such as by
installation of a bypass, any part of the original service line used to maintain continuous
service need not be tested.
The City of Danville (City) failed to test each service line temporarily disconnected from the main from
the point of disconnection to the service line valve, in the same manner as a new service line, before
reconnecting.
During an inspection of the City’s leak records, the VASCC inspector discovered that the City failed
to pressure test service lines from the point of disconnection to the service line valve connection on 12
occasions. The records indicate that repairs were made to the service lines and the lines were soap tested
at the point of repair prior to returning them to service. The City could not produce records to show that a
pressure test was performed on the lines prior to their return to service.
The VASCC inspector observed records stating “soap test” as the only test performed after repairing a
damaged service line at the following locations and dates:
1. WO 106170 29 Old Farm Road 8/24/2011
2. WO 104324 Piney Forest and Deer Run Road 6/14/2011
3. WO 106634 543 Rosemary Lane 9/14/2011
4. 151 Tollives Place 9/26/2011
5. WO 101821 449 Winstead Drive 3/22/2011
6. WO 105647 111 Winston Court 8/4/2011
7. WO 100383 159 Kirkwood Drive12/29/2011
8. WO 103064 Kings Court and Princess Drive 5/5/2011
9. WO 101313 100 Joanis Drive 2/18/2011
10. WO 104505 131 James Road 6/22/2011
11. WO 106178 Colquhoun Street and Craighead Street 8/25/2011
12. WO 108288 319 Girard Street 12/4/2011.
During an exit interview with the City, no explanation was offered to address the VA SCC inspector’s
concerns. The City stated that the operator used pretested pipe in the repair.
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per
violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of violations.
For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per



1-2013-0009
violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations.
The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the
above probable violations and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of
$55,400 as follows:
Item number PENALTY
1 $25,900
2 $29,500
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to Item 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to City of Danville, VA. Please refer to the
Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.
Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in
Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All material you
submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you believe that any
portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with
the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you
believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted
information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30
days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this
Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this
Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 1-2013-0009, and for each document you
submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible, and please whenever possible
provide a signed PDF copy in electronic format. Smaller files may be emailed to Byron.Coy@dot.gov.
Larger files should be sent on a CD accompanied by the original paper copy to the Eastern Region Office.
Additionally, if you choose to respond to this (or any other case), please ensure that any response letter
pertains solely to one CPF case number.
Sincerely,
Byron Coy, PE
Director, Eastern Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Cc: James Hotinger VA SCC
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings



1-2013-0009
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) proposes to issue to City of Danville, Virginia (City) a Compliance Order incorporating the
following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of City with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. 2. 3. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to the City’s failure to test each
service line temporarily disconnected from the main from the point of disconnection to
the service line valve, the City must amend its procedures regarding pressure testing to
address this requirement.
The City shall have 60 days from the receipt of a Final Order to complete the
requirements for Item Number 2 of the Notice.
It is requested (not mandated) that the City maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total
to Byron Coy, PE, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost
associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2)
total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline
infrastructure.



CPF No. 1-2013-0009
8
APPENDIX B



CPF No. 1-2013-0009
9
Work Plan for the personnel training related to
leak classification and service line repairs and testing.
City of Danville, Virginia
CPF 1-2013-0009
1. Introduction
The U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) has allowed the City of Danville, Virginia (City), the opportunity to
perform the following supplemental safety actions as an alternative to paying a proposed civil
penalty for alleged violations of the pipeline safety regulations in 49 C.F.R. Part 192. The City
is to perform these risk-mitigating actions relative to the violations, which improve the continued
safe operations of the natural gas distribution and provide value that offsets the proposed civil
penalties. Should PHMSA determine that the proposed actions provide safety and/or
environmental value beyond the enforcement of the civil penalty, the City will enter into a
Consent Agreement with PHMSA to perform the proposed actions within agreed-upon time
frames.
2. General Information and Completed Remedial Actions
Notice of Probable Violation, Item 1
PHMSA’s Notice of Probable Violation in CPF 1-2012-0009 identified two items of probable
violation and included proposed civil penalties for both items. The notice also included a
Proposed Compliance Order, requiring the City to take various remedial actions to correct the
probable violations. In Item 1, PHMSA alleged that the City failed to follow City procedure for
classifying leaks, in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a). The probable violation was identified
from a leak at 164 Martin Avenue that was improperly classified as a Class 2 leak, while the
records and criteria indicate that it was a Class 1 leak. Item 1 included a proposed civil penalty
of $25,900.
The City has reviewed potential remedial actions which could be performed by the City and used
in the development of a Consent Agreement with PHMSA. Following consideration, it has been
determined that the best remedial action aligned with the probable violation is training of
personnel by outside subject matter experts.
The City has contacted Heath Consultants, headquartered in Houston, Texas, to develop and
implement an on-site training program for responding to natural gas leaks and grading leaks
found. The training program will be based on the leak investigation and leak grading procedures
found in the City's Operations and Maintenance (O&M) plan. All of the City’s Water and Gas
Engineering Department personnel who are responsible for responding to natural gas leaks will
be included in the training program. All content of the training program, as well as attendance
for the training program, will be documented by the Water and Gas Engineering Department.
The City is reviewing available training topics for consideration of additional formal O&M
related training opportunities.



CPF No. 1-2013-0009
10
Notice of Probable Violation, Item 2
In Item 2, PHMSA alleged that the City failed to test each service line temporarily disconnected
from the main from the point of disconnection to the service line valve in the same manner as a
new service line, before reconnecting. The probable violation was identified at 12 locations:
1. WO 106170 29 Old Farm Road 8/24/2011
2. WO 104324 Piney Forest and Deer Run Road 6/14/2011
3. WO 106634 543 Rosemary Lane 9/14/2011
4. 151 Tollives Place 9/26/2011
5. WO 101821 449 Winstead Drive 3/22/2011
6. WO 105647 111 Winston Court 8/4/2011
7. WO 100383 159 Kirkwood Drive12/29/2011
8. WO 103064 Kings Court and Princess Drive 5/5/2011
9. WO 101313 100 Joanis Drive 2/18/2011
10. WO 104505 131 James Road 6/22/2011
11. WO 106178 Colquhoun Street and Craighead Street 8/25/2011
12. WO 108288 319 Girard Street 12/4/2011
Item 2 included a proposed civil penalty of $29,500. The total proposed civil penalty for both
items is $55,400.
The City has reviewed potential remedial actions which could be performed by the City and used
in a Consent Agreement with PHMSA. Following consideration, it has been determined that the
best remedial action aligned with the probable violation is training of personnel. The City has
already completed the requirements of the Proposed Compliance Order.
The City's Water and Gas Engineering Department shall be responsible for developing and
implementing a training program in accordance with the revised testing procedures for repairing
natural gas services and general test procedures for all new and repaired pipeline segments. The
City may expand this training program to include various O&M-related topics. It is anticipated
that the initial two-day training program shall consist of classroom education. The Water and
Gas Engineering Department shall also be responsible for reviewing the City's Operator
Qualification (OQ) plan for pressure and leak testing to determine compliance with the City’s
O&M plan and modifying the plan, as required. The Water and Gas Engineering Department
will also review the requalification period for the OQ task to determine if more frequent
requalification is required. All of the City’s Water and Gas Engineering Department personnel
who are responsible for either construction and maintenance of pipeline segments or providing
engineering and inspection services will be included in the training program. This is expected to
include approximately 40 persons.
All content of the training program, revisions to the City's OQ plan, and attendance for the
training program will be documented by the City’s Water and Gas Engineering Department.



CPF No. 1-2013-0009
11
3.
Project Schedule
Item 1
Timing for the development of the training program and implementation of the training program
are largely dependent on the consultant, Heath Consultants. It is anticipated that the consultants,
in cooperation with the City's Water and Gas Engineering Department, can develop a training
program within 90 days and provide two days of on-site training within 30 days thereafter.
Estimated Schedule**:
Training Program Development:
July 1, 2016 through September 30, 2016
On-Site Training:
October 1, 2016 through November 30, 2016
** The City plans to compress the schedule for training program development and
implementation and the City reserves the right to adjust the actual schedule to accommodate this
goal.
Item 2
The City expects to compress timing for development of a training program and review and
modification of the O&M plan and OQ plan to accommodate this Project Schedule, since all
work is being performed by City personnel.
Estimated Schedule**:
Review and Revision of OQ Plan: July 1, 2016 through August 31, 2016
Training Program Development:
September 1, 2016 through September 30, 2016
On-Site Training:
October 1, 2016 through November 30, 2016
Personnel OQ Requalification:
October 1, 2016 through November 30, 2016
** The City plans to compress the schedule for the training program development and
implementation and the City reserves the right to adjust the actual schedule to accommodate this
goal.
Estimated Project Costs
The estimated cost for work associated with Item 1 includes:
Administration and coordination of training with Heath Consultants
$8,000
Consultant's Labor
$2,400
Consultant's Travel Expenses
Airfare
$670
Vehicle Rental
$280
Lodging
$500
Meals
$390
City Personnel Training
Labor
$11,520
Meals
$500
Subtotal Estimated Cost
$24,260



CPF No. 1-2013-0009
12
The estimated cost for work associated with Item 2 includes:
Training Program Development $4,930
Associated Operator Qualification Training Modules
Review $2,250
Modification $4,950
City Personnel Training
Labor $11,520
Meals $500
Subtotal Estimated Cost $24,150
Total Estimated Cost $48,410

120130009_Closure Letter_05192017_text.pdf

OVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY
May 19, 2017
Kelly P. Kinnett, P.E.
Water and Gas Director
City of Danville
1040 Monument Street.
Danville, VA 24540
CPF 1-2013-0009
Dear Mr. Kinnett:
On July 19, 2016, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued
to the City of Danville (City) a Consent Agreement and Order in the above-referenced case. Based
on our review of the documentation the City provided, it has been determined that the City has
complied with the terms of the Consent Agreement and Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert Burrough
Acting Director, Eastern Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: Mr. Massoud Tahamtani, VA SCC
Mr. Drew Eaken, VA SCC

120130009_NOPV PCP PCO_12232013_text.pdf

U.S. Department Of Transportation Pipeline and 609.989.2171
Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103
West Trenton, NJ 08628
NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
OVERNIGHT EXPRESS MAIL
December 23, 2013
Mr. Steve Saum, Dir. Of Utilities
City of Danville, VA
1040 Monument St.
Danville, VA 24541
CPF 1-2013-0009
Dear Mr. Saum:
On March 19 through 22, 2012, an inspector from the Virginia State Corporation Commission (VA SCC)
acting as Agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to
Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected the City of Danville’s (City) pipeline facilities in Danville,
VA.
As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety
Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violations are:
1. § 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of written
procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency response.
For transmission lines, the manual must also include procedures for handling abnormal
operations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not
exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. This manual must be prepared before
operations of a pipeline system commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at
locations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted.
The City of Danville (City) failed to follow City procedure, Chapter 2, Part G-6, Table II.G-6.1 Titled Grade
1 Leaks. The procedure provides action criteria for Grade 1 leaks. It states that any gas above 80% LEL in a
confined space, or 80% LEL or greater in a small substructure from which gas would likely migrate to the
outside wall of a building is a Class 1 leak.
During an inspection of the City’s leak records, the VASCC inspector discovered that a leak at 164 Martin
Avenue was called in at 12:02 pm, on 09/03/2011.
a. The leak, according to Work Order ID 106346, was a Class 2



1-2013-0009
b. c. d. The field notes indicated that City personnel found 11% gas in air in a manhole
Typically, natural gas has an LEL of 4-5%, and an 80% LEL equates to approximately 4% gas
in air.
Since the 11% gas in air measurement found in the manhole exceeded the 4% criteria
specified in the City’s procedures, the leak should have been classified as a Class 1 leak. This
was not done.
Therefore, the City failed to follow their procedure for classifying leaks.
During an exit interview with the City, no explanation was offered to address the VA SCC inspector
concerns. The repairs were documented as being completed on 09/07/2011.
2. § 192.725 Test requirements for reinstating service lines
(b) Each service line temporarily disconnected from the main must be tested from the point of
disconnection to the service line valve in the same manner as a new service line, before
reconnecting. However, if provisions are made to maintain continuous service, such as by
installation of a bypass, any part of the original service line used to maintain continuous service
need not be tested.
The City of Danville (City) failed to test each service line temporarily disconnected from the main from the
point of disconnection to the service line valve, in the same manner as a new service line, before
reconnecting.
During an inspection of the City’s leak records, the VASCC inspector discovered that the City failed
to pressure test service lines from the point of disconnection to the service line valve connection on 12
occasions. The records indicate that repairs were made to the service lines and the lines were soap tested at
the point of repair prior to returning them to service. The City could not produce records to show that a
pressure test was performed on the lines prior to their return to service.
The VASCC inspector observed records stating “soap test” as the only test performed after repairing a
damaged service line at the following locations and dates:
1. WO 106170 29 Old Farm Road 8/24/2011
2. WO 104324 Piney Forest and Deer Run Road 6/14/2011
3. WO 106634 543 Rosemary Lane 9/14/2011
4. 151 Tollives Place 9/26/2011
5. WO 101821 449 Winstead Drive 3/22/2011
6. WO 105647 111 Winston Court 8/4/2011
7. WO 100383 159 Kirkwood Drive12/29/2011
8. WO 103064 Kings Court and Princess Drive 5/5/2011
9. WO 101313 100 Joanis Drive 2/18/2011
10. WO 104505 131 James Road 6/22/2011
11. WO 106178 Colquhoun Street and Craighead Street 8/25/2011
12. WO 108288 319 Girard Street 12/4/2011.
During an exit interview with the City, no explanation was offered to address the VA SCC inspector’s
concerns. The City stated that the operator used pretested pipe in the repair.
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per
violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. For
violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation
120130009_NOPV_PCP_PCO_12232013 Page 2 of 4



1-2013-0009
per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations. The
Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above
probable violations and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $55,400 as
follows:
Item number PENALTY
1 $25,900
2 $29,500
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to Item 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to City of Danville, VA. Please refer to the
Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.
Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in
Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All material you
submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you believe that any
portion of your respon
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 42838