# EASTERN GAS TRANSMISSION AND STORAGE, INC. — Notice of Probable Violation

**Citation:** CPF 120131026  
**Type / status:** enforcement / historical  
**Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration  
**Effective:** Not stated  
**Published:** 2013-11-20

CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.605(a), 192.751(a).

## Document text

Notice of Probable Violation involving EASTERN GAS TRANSMISSION AND STORAGE, INC.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.605(a),  192.751(a). The case was opened on 2013-11-20 and is reported as closed as of 2015-10-08. Proposed civil penalty: $30,400. Assessed civil penalty: $0. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

120131026_Final Order_10082015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120131026/120131026_Final%20Order_10082015.pdf

120131026_Final Order_10082015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120131026/120131026_Final%20Order_10082015_text.pdf

120131026_NOPV_PCP_11202013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120131026/120131026_NOPV_PCP_11202013.pdf

120131026_NOPV_PCP_11202013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120131026/120131026_NOPV_PCP_11202013_text.pdf

120131026_Operator Request Hearing_Case Files_01162014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120131026/120131026_Operator%20Request%20Hearing_Case%20Files_01162014.pdf

120131026_Final Order_10082015_text.pdf

October 8, 2015
Mr. Thomas F. Farrell, President
Dominion Resources, Inc.
120 Tredegar Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Re: CPF No. 1-2013-1026
Dear Mr. Farrell:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws a single
allegation of violation against your subsidiary, Dominion Transmission, Inc., along with the
associated civil penalty. Therefore, this case is now closed. Service of the Final Order by
certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Brian C. Sheppard, Vice President, Pipeline Operations, Dominion Transmission,
Inc., 925 White Oaks Boulevard, Bridgeport, West Virginia 26330
Ms. Jacqueline Wilson, Counsel, Dominion Transmission, Inc., 925 White Oaks
Boulevard, Bridgeport, West Virginia 26330
Ms. Lois M. Henry, Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street,
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Ms. Susan A. Olenchuk, Counsel for Dominion Transmission, Inc., VanNess Feldman,
1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20007
Mr. Byron Coy, P.E., Director, Eastern Region, OPS
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
_________________________________________
In the Matter of )
)
)
Dominion Transmission, Inc., )
a subsidiary of Dominion Resources, Inc., )
Respondent. )
_________________________________________ )
) CPF No. 1-2013-1026
FINAL ORDER
On January 10-13, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the West Virginia
Public Service Commission (WV PSC), acting as agent for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline
safety inspection of the facilities and records of Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI or
Respondent), relating to the company’s Cornwell and Chelyan operating areas, as well as its
Cornwell and LL Tonkin compressor stations, all located in West Virginia. DTI is the interstate
gas transmission subsidiary of Dominion Resources, Inc., and operates 7,800 miles of pipeline in
Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland and Virginia.1
As a result of the inspection, by letter dated November 20, 2013, the Director, Eastern Region,
OPS (Director), issued to Respondent a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty
(Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that DTI had violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a)
and assessing a civil penalty of $30,400 for the alleged violation. The warning item required no
further action, but warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face future potential
enforcement action.
On December 4, 2013, Respondent requested the case file and an extension of time to respond to
the Notice. On December 13, 2013, PHMSA granted DTI’s requests. By letter dated January
16, 2014, DTI contested the allegation of violation, sought elimination or reduction of the
proposed penalty, and requested a hearing. On May 16, 2014, DTI withdrew its request for a
hearing. By letter dated June 6, 2014, DTI then submitted a formal response to the Notice
(Response). Respondent continued to contest the allegation of violation, offered additional
information in response to the Notice, and requested that the proposed civil penalty be
eliminated.
1 See https://www.dom.com/corporate/what-we-do/natural-gas/dominion-transmission-inc.



CPF No. 1-2013-1026
Page 2
FINDING OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), which states:
§ 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 Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its own
manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for
emergency response. Specifically, the Notice alleged that DTI failed to lock the isolation valves
on two suction scrubber relief valves located at the Cornwell Compressor Station, as required by
the company’s procedure, SOP 210/02, Pressure Limiting, Regulating and Compressor Stations
– Inspections and Tests, Revision Date 08/01/2011, Section VI Paragraph A.2 (SOP 210/02).
The Notice references this procedure, which states:
“The final inspection should include the following…
Restoration of all locking and security devices to proper position…
NOTE:…Isolation valves under relief devices should be secured in the
open position in a manner that prevents operation by unauthorized
personnel.”
The Notice alleged that two unlocked isolation valves were observed on two suction scrubber
valves during the WV PSC inspection, in violation of this procedure. The valves were locked by
DTI after the inspection.
In its Response, DTI acknowledged that the isolation valves in question were not locked at the
time of the inspection, but argued that it was not a violation of § 192.605(a). DTI presented
three arguments: (1) that OPS had not shown that DTI failed to comply with its procedure
delineated in SOP 210/02; (2) that the pertinent language in SOP 210/02 was permissive, not
mandatory; and (3) that no other regulation required DTI to lock the isolation valves.
Taking these in reverse order, in determining whether Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.605(a), I do not consider it relevant whether a PHMSA regulation requires locks on
isolation valves; the regulation involved here, § 192.605(a), pertains solely to whether the
company followed its own procedure regarding the securing of isolation valves.
2



CPF No. 1-2013-1026
Page 3
Upon consideration of all the evidence, I am convinced that SOP 210/02 itself does not itself
require that all isolation valves be kept “secured in an open position in a manner that prevents
operation by unauthorized personnel.” Clearly, the intent of this language is that isolation valves
under relief devices should be secured in an open position to “prevent operation by unauthorized
personnel.” Here, the word “should” unmistakably implies a duty, not a mere suggestion, that
such valves be kept from being operated by someone who lacks the authority to open or close
them.
However, such intent is arguably offset by the company’s own Regulator & Over-Pressure
Protection Inspection form,
2 which asks the question: “How are valves that could affect the
proper operation of this device protected from unauthorized operation?” Three response options
are provided on the company’s valve inspection form: “Chain/Lock,” “Locked Fence,” or
“Locked Building.” The question and the three alternative answers clearly suggest there are
alternative means of protecting the valves from improper operation. When the company’s
procedure and the form are considered together, I am not convinced that SOP 210/02 requires the
isolation valves at issue in this case to always be secured in an open position.
While DTI’s procedure, particularly when read in conjunction with the form, is ambiguous and
should be clarified, I cannot find by a preponderance of the evidence that the company failed to
follow SOP 210/02 in this particular instance. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence
and the legal issues presented, I order that Item 1 and the associated civil penalty be withdrawn.
WARNING ITEM
With respect to Item 2, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 192 but did not propose a
civil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered a warning
item. The warning was for:
49 C.F.R. § 192.751 (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to take steps to
minimize the danger of accidental ignition of gas in any structure or area where
the presence of gas constitutes a hazard of fire or explosion.
If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject
to future enforcement action.
2 Response, at Exhibit D.
3



CPF No. 1-2013-1026
Page 4
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
___________________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
4

## Provenance

- Official: Yes
- Source: <https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120131026>
- Source ID: `phmsa-enforcement`
- SHA-256: `bf3a0850b9a3f9a5e74447a75ccc2262c9da90ef9174188a49ef2ef26924b6b4`
- Retrieved: 2026-08-20T04:44:44.458Z
- Exported: 2026-08-24T21:05:14.640Z
- Document slug: `phmsa-enforcement-120131026`

### Source metadata

```json
{
  "cpf": "120131026",
  "operator": "EASTERN GAS TRANSMISSION AND STORAGE, INC.",
  "region": "Eastern",
  "pipelineType": "GAS INTERSTATE ONSHORE",
  "caseStatus": "CLOSED",
  "citedSections": [
    "192.605(a)",
    "192.751(a)"
  ],
  "dataAsOf": "08/04/2026 12PM",
  "caseDataAsOf": "2026-08-04",
  "attachmentCount": 5,
  "attachments": [
    {
      "name": "120131026_Final Order_10082015.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120131026/120131026_Final%20Order_10082015.pdf",
      "bytes": 223262,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "120131026_Final Order_10082015_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120131026/120131026_Final%20Order_10082015_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 38260,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "120131026_NOPV_PCP_11202013.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120131026/120131026_NOPV_PCP_11202013.pdf",
      "bytes": 222620,
      "category": "case_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "120131026_NOPV_PCP_11202013_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120131026/120131026_NOPV_PCP_11202013_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 27044,
      "category": "case_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "120131026_Operator Request Hearing_Case Files_01162014.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120131026/120131026_Operator%20Request%20Hearing_Case%20Files_01162014.pdf",
      "bytes": 194743,
      "category": "party_submission"
    }
  ],
  "extractedAgencyDocumentCount": 1,
  "attachmentPolicy": "Official attachment links are retained. Agency-issued documents may also include a verified local PDF and page-level text representation.",
  "jurisdiction": "US",
  "operatorName": "EASTERN GAS TRANSMISSION AND STORAGE, INC."
}
```
