{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120091006","title":"EASTERN GAS TRANSMISSION AND STORAGE, INC. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2009-06-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.163(e), 192.179(c), 192.225(b), 192.481(a), 192.605, 192.709(c), 192.739(a), 192.743.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120091006.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120091006.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120091006","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120091006","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving EASTERN GAS TRANSMISSION AND STORAGE, INC.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.163(e),  192.179(c),  192.225(b),  192.481(a),  192.605,  192.709(c),  192.739(a),  192.743. The case was opened on 2009-06-26 and is reported as closed as of 2011-12-20. Proposed civil penalty: $195,100. Assessed civil penalty: $191,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120091006_ Supplement to Petition For Reconsideration_05262011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120091006/120091006_%20Supplement%20to%20Petition%20For%20Reconsideration_05262011.pdf\n\n120091006_Closure Letter_12202011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120091006/120091006_Closure%20Letter_12202011.pdf\n\n120091006_Closure Letter_12202011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120091006/120091006_Closure%20Letter_12202011_text.pdf\n\n120091006_Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration_10132011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120091006/120091006_Decision%20on%20the%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_10132011.pdf\n\n120091006_Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration_10132011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120091006/120091006_Decision%20on%20the%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_10132011_text.pdf\n\n120091006_Final Order_ 12302010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120091006/120091006_Final%20Order_%2012302010_text.pdf\n\n120091006_FinalOrder_12302010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120091006/120091006_FinalOrder_12302010.pdf\n\n120091006_NOPV-PCP-PCO_06262009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120091006/120091006_NOPV-PCP-PCO_06262009.pdf\n\n120091006_NOPV-PCP-PCO_06262009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120091006/120091006_NOPV-PCP-PCO_06262009_text.pdf\n\n120091006_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_02232011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120091006/120091006_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_02232011.pdf\n\n120091006_Operator Response_07292009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120091006/120091006_Operator%20Response_07292009.pdf\n\n120091006_NOPV-PCP-PCO_06262009_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department 820 Bear Tavern Road. Suite 306\nof Transportation West Trenton, N.J. 08628\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJune 26, 2009\nMr. Jeff Barger\nVice President, Operations\nDominion Transmission, Inc.\n445 West Main Street\nClarksburg, WV 26301\nCPF 1-2009-1006\nDear Mr. Barger:\nFrom July to November 2008, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), the New York Public Service Commission, and the West Virginia\nPublic Service Commission pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code inspected your\nrecords and pipeline facilities in the states of West Virginia and Pennsylvania.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the\nprobable violations are:\n\n\n\n1. § 192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring\n(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed\nto the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:\nIf the pipeline is located:\nThen the frequency of inspection is:\nOnshore At least once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals\nnot exceeding 39 months\nOffshore At least once each calendar year, but with intervals not\nexceeding 15 months\nUnder § 192.481, DTI is required to inspect each portion of pipeline that is exposed to the\natmosphere at least once every three calendar years for onshore pipe for evidence of atmospheric\ncorrosion. DTI must perform these inspections at intervals not exceeding 39 months. However,\nDTI failed to inspect the run #1 back-up fuel gas regulator station near valve FGV-25 at the\nOakford Compressor Station. The piping had surface rust and pits measuring up to 80 mils in\ndepth on a 5”x 8” area on top of the run. Also, atmospheric corrosion was found on the\ndehydrator dry gas header outlet with pits measuring approximately 110 mils in depth at the\nground to air transition. Although DTI performed an atmospheric corrosion inspection in 2007,\nit failed to identify these areas of atmospheric corrosion.\n2. § 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual of\nwritten procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for\nemergency response. For transmission lines, the manual must also include\nprocedures for handling abnormal operations. This manual must be reviewed and\nupdated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least one each\ncalendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline\nsystem commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations\nwhere operations and maintenance activities are conducted.\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of\nthis section must include procedures for the following, if applicable, to provide\nsafety during maintenance and operations.\n(1) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline in accordance with each of\nthe requirements of this subpart and Subpart M of this part.\n(2) Controlling corrosion in accordance with the operations and maintenance\nrequirements of Subpart I of this part.\n2\n\n\n\nDTI failed to follow its corrosion control maintenance requirements requiring drips to be blown\nat least annually. DTI’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) Section 070/Corrosion Control,\nSOP 15/Internal Corrosion states that all drips should be blown at least once each calendar year.\nMaintenance records of the drips in the Oakford Fifth Sands and Murrysville Storage Pools show\nthat a total of 103 and 330 drips, respectively, from 2003 to 2007 were not blown annually to\nremove fluids which can be corrosive to steel pipelines. Additionally, DTI has documented 69\ndrips which have not been blown because they cannot be accessed, cannot be blown and/or are\nnot piped up. These 69 additional drips are in a DTI schedule to be corrected within 9 years.\n3. § 192.709 Transmission lines: Record keeping.\nEach operator shall maintain the following records for transmission lines for the\nperiods specified:\nc) A record of each patrol, survey, inspection, and test required by subparts L and\nM of this part must be retained for at least 5 years or until the next patrol, survey,\ninspection, or test is completed, whichever is longer.\nDTI failed to provide records for the required last 5 years (2003-2007) to demonstrate that\nannual capacity calculations were performed for pressure relieving devices at five compressor\nstations (Harrison, Ellisburg, Stateline, Oakford and JB Tonkin) as required by §192.731 and\n§192.743. DTI failed to provide to the PHMSA inspection team, during headquarter and field\ninspections, compressor stations records showing the capacity review and calculations for their\nrelief devices. Although DTI reviews the initial capacity calculations as permitted by\n§192.743(b) in order to meet the annual capacity determination requirements for relief devices,\nDTI is still required to demonstrate that the parameters have not changed to avoid subsequent\ncalculations. DTI could not provide records to demonstrate this required review of the\nparameters was performed.\n4. § 192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and testing.\n(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs), and pressure\nregulating station and its equipment must be subjected at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year, to inspections and tests to determine\nthat it is—\n(1) In good mechanical condition;\n(2) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the\nservice in which it is employed;\n3\n\n\n\n(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, set to control or relieve at\nthe correct pressure consistent with the pressure limits of §192.201(a); and\n(4) Properly installed and protected from dirt, liquids, or other conditions that\nmight prevent proper operation.\nDuring PHMSA’s field inspection, DTI technicians stated that some relief devices had not been\ninspected and no records of inspection were in the DTI’s database. The following relief valves\nwere not inspected at the required intervals for the period of 2003-2007:\n1. Ellisburg Compressor Station fuel gas bottle inlet 1st cut regulator (Location ID\nCSN6361) has a regulator but the overpressure protection was not listed as inspected\n2. Ellisburg Compressor Station relief valve (2” Axelson serial number 632280)\n3. Stateline Compressor Station fuel gas bypass relief valve\n5. §192.743 Pressure limiting and regulator stations: Capacity of relief devices.\n(a) Pressure relief devices at pressure limiting stations and pressure regulating\nstations must have sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to which they are\nconnected. Except as provided in §192.739(b), the capacity must be consistent with\nthe pressure limits of §192.201(a). This capacity must be determined at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, by testing the devices in\nplace or by review and calculations\n(b) If review and calculations are used to determine if a device has sufficient\ncapacity, the calculated capacity must be compared with the rated or experimentally\ndetermined relieving capacity of the device for the conditions under which it\noperates. After the initial calculations, subsequent calculations need not be made if\nthe annual review documents that parameters have not changed to cause the rated\nor experimentally determined relieving capacity to be insufficient.\nDTI failed to conduct adequate annual reviews of pressure relieving devices to determine\nsufficient capacity at the five pressure limiting station devices noted below. DTI only physically\nchecked the relief devices for pressure set point and operation. DTI did not determine adequate\nrelief capacity. DTI had no documentation showing capacity calculations for the relief devices\nincluding comparison to rated relief design at their facilities needed for the required annual relief\ncapacity determination.\n1) Stateline Compressor Station location, feed line #16 with 1st and 2nd regulator stations\nwith 2” Welmark relief valve\n4\n\n\n\n2) Stateline Compressor Station location Line #24 supplied by 10” dual port regulator\nwith overpressure protection provided by 8”relief valve having a 6” inlet pipe\n3) Oakford Region, Gas sales to Peoples Gas having a 6”x 8” Axelson relief valve\n4) Oakford Region, Springdale meter and regulator station with relief valve overpressure\nprotection\n5) Mockingbird Hill Station #426 regulator and relief assembly\n6. § 192.225 Welding procedures.\n(a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder in accordance with welding\nprocedures qualified under section 5 of API 1104 (incorporated by reference, see\n§192.7) or section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code “ Welding and\nBrazing Qualifications” (incorporated by reference, see §192.7) to produce welds\nmeeting the requirements of this subpart. The quality of the test welds used to\nqualify welding procedures shall be determined by destructive testing in accordance\nwith the applicable welding standard(s).\n(b) Each welding procedure must be recorded in detail, including the results of the\nqualifying tests. This record must be retained and followed whenever the procedure\nis used.\nDuring the field inspection of the Cove Point MD expansion project, DTI representatives\nindicated that there were no welding repair procedures on site in accordance with welding\nprocedures qualified by §192.225; and, that welding repairs had been made to the DTI project\nfacilities without having qualified procedures.\n7. § 192.179 Transmission line valves.\n(c) Each section of a transmission line, other than offshore segments, between main\nline valves must have a blowdown valve with enough capacity to allow the\ntransmission line to be blown down as rapidly as practicable. Each blowdown\ndischarge must be located so the gas can be blown to the atmosphere without hazard\nand, if the transmission line is adjacent to an overhead electric line, so that the gas is\ndirected away from the electrical conductors.\n5\n\n\n\nDTI did not determine if the new 36” transmission line being installed for the Cove Point, MD\nexpansion project could be blown down as rapidly as practicable as required by §192.179(c).\nDTI indicated that the Cove Point, MD expansion project blow-down design was made to match\nthe blow-down design of the existing Cove Point parallel 30” transmission line. DTI did not take\ninto consideration the larger size (36”) of the new main, and just assumed the existing 30”\ntransmission line blow-down capacity would be sufficient.\n8. § 192.163 Compressor stations: Design and construction.\n(e) Electrical facilities. Electrical equipment and wiring installed in compressor\nstations must conform to the National Electrical Code, ANSI/NFPA 70, so far as\nthat code is applicable.\nDTI did not conform to the National Electrical Code requirements. At the time of the inspection,\nDTI transformers adjacent to main compressor building at Lightburn Station did not appear to be\ntied into a continuous grounding circuit in explosion-proof boxes, in accordance with NFPA 70\n(2005) National Electrical Code, Article 250, for the following equipment:\n(1) #5 engine pre-lube pump starter\n(2) #4 engine pre-lube pump starter\n(3) #3 engine pre-lube pump starter.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000\nfor each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documentation involved in the above probable violations and has recommended that\nyou be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $195,100 as follows:\nItem number\nPENALTY\nItem 1 $30,500\nItem 2 $80,500\nItem 3 $16,800\nItem 4 $36,800\nItem 5 $30,500\nWarning Items\n6\n\n\n\nWith respect to Items 6, 7 and 8, we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents\ninvolved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty\nassessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these items. Be advised\nthat failure to do so may result in Dominion Transmission, Inc. being subjected to additional\nenforcement action.\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to Item 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Dominion\nTransmission, Inc. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made\na part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be\nadvised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being\nmade publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days\nof 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\nthis Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 1-2009-1006 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nByron E. Coy, P.E.\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n7\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Dominion Transmission, Inc.(DTI) a Compliance\nOrder incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of DTI with\nthe pipeline safety regulations:\n1. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice, DTI must provide documentation that\nsubstantiates that all the drips in the Oakford Fifth Sands and Murrysville Storage\nPools that can currently be blown down have been blown down within 180 days\nof date of final order.\n2. In reference to Item Number 2, the 69 documented drips which have not been\nblown per DTI standard operating procedures (SOP), DTI must develop and\nexecute a plan to find, make accessible, and modify as needed for drip blowing\noperations, those 69 identified drips within 365 days of date of final order.\n3. DTI shall submit the results of the Proposed Compliance Order items above to the\nDirector, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration,\n4. DTI shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated\nwith fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Director, Eastern\nRegion, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Costs shall be\nreported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of\nplans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n8\n\n120091006_Closure Letter_12202011_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department 820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103\nOf Transportation West Trenton, NJ 08628\nPipeline and 609.989.2171\nHazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nEXPRESS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY\nDecember 20, 2011\nMr. Jeff Barger\nVice President, Operations\nDominion Transmission, Inc.\n445 West Main Street\nClarksburg, WV 26301\nCPF 1-2009-1006\nDear Mr. Barger:\nOn December 30, 2010, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI) a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This\nOrder included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment.\nAfter receiving an extension of time, DTI submitted to PHMSA, by letter dated February 23,\n2011, a Petition for Reconsideration of the Order (Petition).\nDTI submitted, by letter dated February 28, 2011, interim results for Compliance Order Items 1\nand 2 (per the terms of Item 3 in the Compliance Order) to the Director, PHMSA Eastern Region\n(Director). For Compliance Order Item 2, DTI was required to submit a plan for drip blowing\noperations to the Director, within 60 days of the Final Order (and execution of the plan within\n365 days of the Final Order). DTI submitted test results in lieu of a plan. The Director accepted\nthe test results in lieu of a plan.\nDTI supplemented its Petition to PHMSA by letter dated May 26, 2011.\nDTI submitted a letter dated July 29, 2011 with additional Compliance Order related results to\nthe Director. In that letter, DTI:\n\n\n\n120091006\n• Provided safety related costs associated with Compliance Order Item 4.\n• Updated the results for Compliance Order Items 1 and 2.\n• Inadvertently referred to an incorrect date for submission of plans for Compliance Order\nItem 2. DTI stated February 14, 2011, which should have been February 28, 2011.\nPHMSA issued its decision on the Petition in the above referenced case on October 13, 2011.\nThe Petition was denied.\nDTI subsequently paid the civil penalty amount via wire transfer on October 27, 2011.\nDTI submitted a letter to the Director on November 18, 2011, noting that the one previously\nremaining inoperable drip within its Oakford Storage Field had been successfully blown on\nOctober 28, 2011.\nBased on our review of the documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the\ncivil penalty, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this 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,\nByron Coy, PE\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n120091006_Closure Letter_12202011 Page 2 of 2\n\n120091006_FinalOrder_12302010.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nWashington, DC 20590\n1200 New Jersey Ave., SE\nSafety Administration\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nDEC 3 0 2010\nMr. Jeff Barger\nVice President, Operations\nDominion Transmission, Inc.\n445 West Main Street\nClarksburg, WV 26301\nRe: CPF No. 1-2009-1006\nDear Mr. Barger:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws several\ninstances of alleged violations, makes other findings of violation, and assesses a reduced civil\npenalty of $191,500. The Order also specifies actions that need to be taken by Dominion\nTransmission, Inc. to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the civil penalty has\nbeen paid and the terms of the compliance order are completed, as determined by the Director,\nEastern Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified\nmail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Byron E. Coy, Director, Eastern Region, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED |7005 1160 0001 0039 99831\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\nDominion Transmission, Inc.\nCPF No. 1-2009-1006\nRespondent.\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween July-November 2008, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), the\nNew York Public Service Commission, and the West Virginia Public Service Commission,\nconducted a series of on-site pipeline safety inspections of the facilities and records of Dominion\nTransmission, Inc. (DTI or Respondent) at its headquarters in Clarksburg, WV, and its field\nfacilities in Oakford, PA, Harrison Valley, PA, Ellisburg, PA, State Line, PA, Lightburn Station,\nWV, and Cove Point, MD. Respondent operates approximately 3,649 miles of gas transmission\npipeline throughout West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, and Virginia.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated June 26, 2009, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that DTI had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192, proposed a\ncivil penalty of $195,100, and proposed that Respondent be required to take certain measures to\ncorrect the alleged violations.\nDTI responded to the Notice by letter dated July 29, 2009 (Response). Respondent contested\nsome of the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested\nthe withdrawal or the mitigation of certain proposed civil penalties. Respondent did not request\na hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a), which states:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 192.481 Atmospheric Corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline\nthat is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion,\nas follows.\nIf the pipeline is\nThen the frequency of\nlocated:\nOnshore\n......\nAt least once every 3 calendar years, but with\nintervals not exceeding 39 months.\nOffshore ............\nAt least once each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 15 months.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a) by failing to inspect each\nintervals not exceeding 39 months. Specifically,\nnerval not exceeding exceeding exposes. Specifically, the Notice allege that bre failed dar near ahe\nrun #1 back-up fuel gas regulator station near valve FGV-25 at the Oakford Compressor Station.\nThe Notice further alleged that Respondent failed to identify areas of atmospheric corrosion on\nthe dehydrator dry gas outlet.\nIn its Response, DTI contended that it did make efforts to identify the corrosion on this\ndehydrator dry gas outlet and scheduled it for maintenance. However, DTI also noted that the\nremediation did not fully comply with its own procedures. Further, DTI conceded that it\noverlooked the inspection for the fuel gas piping in the vicinity of valve FGV-25 during its 2007\nAtmospheric Corrosion inspection.\nAs Respondent admitted, its maintenance efforts were insufficient and it failed to inspect a\nportion of its pipeline for atmospheric corrosion within three calendar years. While I\nacknowledge DTT's efforts to identify the corrosion on its dehydrator dry gas outlet and schedule\nit for maintenance, it is clear that DTI did not fully comply with the requirements under\n§ 192.481(a) by overlooking the inspection of the run #1 back-up fuel gas regulator station near\nvalve FGV-25 at the Oakford Compressor Station.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. $ 192.481(a) by failing to inspect each portion of pipeline that is exposed to the\natmosphere at least once every three calendar years, and at intervals not exceeding 39 months.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605, which states:\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline,\na manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance\nactivities and for emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual\nmust also include procedures for handling abnormal operations. This\nmanual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. This manual\nmust be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence.\n\n\n\n3\nAppropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where\noperations and maintenance activities are conducted.\n(b) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by\nparagraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following, if\n(2) Controlling corrosion in accordance with the operations and\nmaintenance requirements of subpart I of this part....\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605 by failing to follow its\ncorrosion control maintenance procedure requiring drips to be blown at intervals not exceeding\none calendar year. Specifically, it alleged that, at the time of the inspection, 103 and 330 drips\nhad not been blown annually at the Oakford Fifth Sands and Murrysville Storage Pools,\nrespectively, from 2003 through 2007.\nIn its Response, DTI did not contest this allegation of violation, but contended that the two\nlocations only have a total of 331 drips, rather than 433 as alleged in the Notice. Respondent\nstated that all of the operable drips can be or have been blown in the past year.\nPHMSA agrees with DTT's contention that there are only 331 drips at the Oakford Fifth Sands\nand Murrysville Storage Pools collectively. PHMSA further concedes that Respondent's drips\ncan be or have been blown in the past year. However, these contentions do not rebut the\nallegation that DTI failed to blow 443 drips annually between 2003 and 2007. To clarify, the\nNotice cited DTI for a total of 433 instances of drips not being blown during the time period in\nquestion, including some of the same drips that were not blown in multiple years.!\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. § 192.605 by failing to follow its corrosion control maintenance procedure requiring drips\nto be blown at intervals not exceeding one calendar year.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c), which states:\n§ 192.709 Transmission lines: Record keeping.\nEach operator shall maintain the following records for transmission\nlines for the periods specified.\n(a)\n(c) A record of each patrol, survey, inspection, and test required by\nsubparts L and M of this part must be retained for at least 5 years or until\nthe next patrol, survey, inspection, or test is completed, whichever is\nlonger.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.709(c) by failing to maintain\nrecords required by subparts L and M. Specifically, it contended that DTI was unable to provide\n' Violation Report, Exhibit B.\n\n\n\n4\nrecords from calendar years 2003 through 2007 to demonstrate that annual capacity calculations\nwere performed for pressure relieving devices at five compressor stations (Harrison, Ellisburg,\nStateline, Oakford and JB Tonkin).\nIn its Response, DTI contested this allegation of violation. Respondent stated that it had\nrecorded each annual review in either spreadsheets or through an electronic Inspection\nMonitoring System (IMS). In its Response, DTI provided an example of its IMS, but it did not\ninclude the full records of the capacity calculations. Nor did DTI provide any explanation for its\ninability to furnish the documents during the PHMSA inspection.\nThe evidence in the record demonstrates that Respondent's Compliance Engineer could not\nlocate records of relief valve capacity determinations for the subject years during the inspection\neven though PHMSA had notified the company prior to the inspection that such records would\nbe requested. In its Response, DTI did not dispute that it could not provide the PHMSA\ninspection team with records of the capacity calculations for relief devices, and despite the\namount of time since the inspection in 2008, has not provided all of the required records to\nPHMSA.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.709(c) by failing to maintain records demonstrating that annual capacity calculations were\nperformed for pressure relieving devices at five of DTT's compressor stations.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a), which states:\n§ 192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and\ntesting.\n(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs),\nand pressure regulating station and its equipment must be subjected at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to\ninspections and tests to determine that it is-\n(1) In good mechanical condition;\n(2) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of\noperation for the service in which it is employed;\n(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, set to control\nor relieve at the correct pressure consistent with the pressure limits of\n§ 192.201(a); and\n(4) Properly installed and protected from dirt, liquids, or other\nconditions that might prevent proper operation.\n2 Respondent stated in its Response that the records were not included because they constituted \"hundreds of\ndoes not explain the company's failure to maintain the records for inspection. Furthermore, the Notice clearly\npages,\" but that they could be furnished upon request. Response at 3. Even if the records had been provided, that\nexplained to DTI that the existence of these records was in dispute, and therefore Respondent should have provided\nall of them to rebut the allegation.\n3 Violation Report at 7-8.\n\n\n\n5\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a) by failing to perform\ninspections and tests at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year,\non several relief devices. Specifically, the Notice alleged that DTI failed to inspect the following\nrelief valves: (1) the Ellinsburg Compressor Station fuel gas bottle inlet 1st cut regulator\n(Location ID CSN6361); (2) the Ellinsburg Compressor Station relief valve (2\" Axelson serial\nno. 632280); and (3) the Stateline Compressor Station fuel gas bypass relief valve.\nIn its Response, DTI did not contest the allegations of violation with regard to the two devices at\nEllinsburg Compressor Station listed above, but contested the allegation of violation with regard\nto the device at Stateline Compressor Station, which the company argued is a secondary form of\nprotection, personally operated by DTI employees. Due to the nature of the Stateline\nCompressor Station device, Respondent asserted that it is not subject to the requirements of relief\ndevices under 49 C.F.R. § 192.739.\nPHMSA agrees with DTT's characterization of the relief valve at the Stateline Compressor\nStation listed in its Response. The valve is only a secondary form of protection and therefore is\nnot covered by the testing and inspection requirements of 49 C.F.R $ 192.739.* However, DTI\ndid not contest that it failed to test and inspect the two (2) devices at the Ellinsburg Compressor\nStation at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R\n§ 192.739 by failing to test each of its relief devices at the required intervals.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743, which states:\n§ 192.743 Pressure limiting and regulator stations: Capacity of relief\ndevices.\n(a) Pressure relief devices at pressure limiting stations and pressure\nregulating stations must have sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to\nwhich they are connected. Except as provided in § 192.739(b), the\ncapacity must be determine at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at\nleast once each calendar year, by testing the devices in place or by review\nand calculations.\n(b) If review and calculations are used to determine if a device has\nsufficient capacity, the calculated capacity must be compared with the\nrated or experimentally determined relieving capacity of the device for the\nconditions under which it operates. After the initial calculations,\nsubsequent calculations need not be made if the annual review documents\nthat parameters have not changed to cause the rated or experimentally\ndetermined relieving capacity to be insufficient.\n* PHMSA has not interpreted § 192.739 to apply to set points and capacities of back-up or secondary over-pressure\nsa d: pages 121-2, SA is is posted in inteled operating no Main: eti:/ idance 4901 0 192 Subparts\nreading-room.\n\n\n\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743 by failing to determine, at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months and at least once each calendar year, that the pressure relief\ndevices at pressure limiting stations and pressure regulating stations had sufficient capacity to\nprotect the facilities to which they are connected. Specifically, the Notice alleged that DTI failed\nto conduct the required tests of the pressure relieving devices at the following five pressure\nlimiting stations: (1) Stateline Compressor Station location, feed line #16 with Ist and 2nd\nregulator stations with 2\" Welmark relief valves; (2) Stateline Compressor Station location Line\n#24 supplied by 10\" dual port regulator with overpressure protection provided by 8\" relief valve\nhaving a 6\" inlet pipe; (3) Oakford Region, Gas sales to People Gas having a 6\" x 8\" Axelson\nrelief valve; (4) Oakford Region, Springdale meter and regulator station with relief valve\noverpressure protection; and (5) Mockingbird Hill Station #426 regulator and relief assembly.\nIn its Response, DTI did not contest the allegations of violation with regard to the two devices at\nthe Stateline Compressor Station, but contended that the testing requirements under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.743 did not apply to the other three devices listed in the Notice. First, Respondent stated\nthat the relief device for \"Oakford Region, Gas sales to People Gas\" is not an overprotection\ndevice, and therefore it is not covered by § 192.743. Second, DTI asserted that the device at\n\"Oakford Region, Springdale meter and regulator station\" is protected manually by company\npersonnel rather than a relief device. Third, DTI noted that the listed device for \"Mockingbird\nHill Station\" is secondary protection; the primary protection for the station is a high pressure\nshutdown switch on the compressor engine.\nPHMSA agrees with Respondent's assertions. The three devices addressed by DTI are not\ncovered by 49 C.F.R. § 192.743. Therefore, DTI was not obligated to perform the tests\nprescribed under the regulation. However, Respondent did not contest that it failed to perform\nthe required tests on (1) the Stateline Compressor Station location, feed line #16 with 1st and 2nd\nregulator stations with 2\" Welmark relief valves; and (2) the Stateline Compressor Station\nlocation Line #24 supplied by 10\" dual port regulator with overpressure protection provided by\n8\" relief valve having a 6\" inlet pipe.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.743 by failing to determine, at intervals not exceeding 15 months and at least once each\ncalendar year, that each of its pressure relief devices at pressure limiting stations and pressure\nregulating stations had sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to which they are connected.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I\nmust consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\n\n\n\n7\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent's culpability; the history\nof Respondent's prior offenses; the Respondent's ability to pay the penalty and any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil\npenalty of $194,500 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $30,500 for Respondent's violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.481, for failing to inspect a regulator station near valve FGV-25 at the Oakford\nCompressor Station for evidence of atmospheric corrosion. DTI contended that it made some\neffort to identify and remediate the corrosion on the dehydrator dry gas header outlet.\nAlthough PHMSA agrees that Respondent made an effort to identify corrosion, schedule\nremediation, and make an effort to complete the remediation before the time of the PHMSA\ninspection, DTI failed to remediate the corrosion properly. As DTI admitted, the below-ground\ncoating did not extend above ","truncated":true,"body_characters":102688}